Close
Enter your
text here

Review

At Litigation Time, the Cost of Data Storage May Not Be As Low As You Think: eDiscovery Best Practices

One of my favorite all-time graphics that we’ve posted on the blog (from one of our very first posts) is this ad from the early 1980s for a 10 MB disk drive – for $3,398!  That’s MB (megabytes), not GB (gigabytes) or TB (terabytes).  These days, the cost per GB for data storage is pennies on the dollar, which is a big reason why the total amount of data being captured and stored by industry doubles every 1.2 years.  But, at litigation time, all that data can cost you – big.

When I checked on prices for external hard drives back in 2010 (not network drives, which are still more expensive), prices for a 2 TB external drive at Best Buy were as low as $140 (roughly 7 cents per GB).  Now, they’re as low as $81.99 (roughly 4.1 cents per GB).  And, these days, you can go bigger – a 5 TB drive for as low as $129.99 (roughly 2.6 cents per GB).  I promise that I don’t have a side job at Best Buy and am not trying to sell you hard drives (even from the back of a van).

No wonder organizations are storing more and more data and managing Big Data in organizations has become such a challenge!

Because organizations are storing so much data (and in more diverse places than ever before), information governance within those organizations has become vitally important in keeping that data as manageable as possible.  And, when litigation or regulatory requests hit, the ability to quickly search and cull potentially responsive data is more important than ever.

Back in 2010, I illustrated how each additional GB that has to be reviewed can cost as much as $16,650 (even with fairly inexpensive contract reviewers).  And, that doesn’t even take into consideration the costs to identify, preserve, collect, and produce each additional GB.  Of course, that was before Da Silva Moore and several other cases that ushered in the era of technology assisted review (even though more cases are still not using it than are using it).  Regardless, that statistic illustrates how the cost of data storage may not be as low as you think at litigation time – each GB could cost hundreds or even thousands to manage (even in the era of eDiscovery automation and falling prices for eDiscovery software and services).

Equating the early 1980’s ad above to GB, that equates to about $330,000 per GB!  But, if you go all the way back to 1950, the cost of a 5 MB drive from IBM was $50,000, which equates to about $10 million per GB!  Check out this interactive chart of hard drive prices from 1950-2010, courtesy of That Data Dude (yes, that really is the name of the site) where you can click on different years and see how the price per GB has dropped over the years.  It’s way cool!

So, what do you think?  Do you track GB metrics for your 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. 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.

I Tell Ya, Review Attorneys Get No Respect, No Respect at All: eDiscovery Trends

If Rodney Dangerfield had been an attorney, he probably would have been a review attorney…

As the volume of data in the world doubles as frequently as every 1.2 years, the challenges to manage that data in discovery compound significantly as well.  With review being the biggest component of the discovery process – as much as 80% of the cost of eDiscovery – review attorneys have become a significant participant in that review process (even in some cases where technology assisted review may be used).  That doesn’t mean that review attorneys get the respect that they may deserve.

A recent article in the Washington Post (The lawyers who are fighting for the same rights as janitors, written by Lydia DePillis) discusses the challenges facing review attorneys who are trying to pay law school debt as large as $300,000 with an hourly rate as low as $25 per hour and how a group of attorneys is organizing to do something about it.

We’ve already seen two cases filed (one was settled, one was dismissed) where attorneys have sued for overtime pay based on their claim that the review work they were performing did not actually require legal skills.  As the article notes, a contract attorney in NYC (Valeria Georghiu) has banded attorneys together with help from a union and the National Lawyers Guild to launch a website for a new group called The United Contract Attorneys, which has taken small collective actions, like asking for higher rates on jobs that require specialized language skills, for which the labor pool is smaller.  They have also advocated paying contract attorneys time and a half for overtime, arguing that most of the work doesn’t require professional judgment.

“The assumption that lawyers earn a ‘professional’ salary – and are therefore categorically exempt from overtime compensation – is simply no longer true,” Gheorghiu wrote. “As a result, Contract Attorneys are a stark example of the disappearing middle class sorely in need of higher wages.”

To get a sense of how contract attorneys are treated, I asked the Director of Review Services at CloudNine, Karen DeSouza, if she had any examples of lack of respect for review attorneys in past review projects in which she worked.  She had plenty.  For example:

  • One project where she worked when the air conditioning went out in the middle of summer in Houston. The firm’s attempt to alleviate the issue was to put grocery sack paper over the floor to ceiling windows letting in the sunlight.
  • On that same project with 140+ reviewers, the bathrooms were out of commission at times.
  • On another project, the head paralegal and attorney in charge of the project took 10-15 reviewers into the office to tell them they were going too fast without even asking what documents were being reviewed.
  • She also worked on a project where a partner in the firm didn’t want the review attorneys walking past her office, so they were asked to walk a different way to their review stations.
  • Karen has also heard about projects where the reviewers were timed for restroom breaks and had their cell phones locked up in lockers while they worked.

Needless to say, review attorneys sometimes feel like they get no respect, no respect at all.  It will be interesting to see if they can at least get more pay through lawsuits for overtime pay and by organizing together in groups like the United Contract Attorneys.

So, what do you think?  Will organizing enable review attorneys to get the respect they deserve?  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.

Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis, LLP: eDiscovery Trends

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

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

{Interviewed the second day of LTNY}

I have not been on the vendor floor yet, but I hope to get there.  I have been in several meetings and I was able to attend the keynote on cybersecurity today by Eric O’Neill, who was a terrific speaker.  They started out by showing the movie that was made of the big event in his life where they caught the biggest spy America has ever had.  He talked about that incident and cybersecurity and it was very good.  Of course, cybersecurity is something that I’m very interested in, but not so much as an expert in the field, but just as an observer.  My interest in cybersecurity is only as it relates to eDiscovery.  O’Neill was talking about the big picture of catching spies and industrial espionage and the Chinese stealing American secrets.  It was very good and the auditorium was filled.

Otherwise, the show seems quite alive and vibrant, with orange people and Star Wars characters here and there as a couple of examples of what the providers were doing to get attention here at the show.  I have been live “tweeting” during the show.  Of course, I’ve seen old friends pretty much everywhere I walk and everybody is here as usual.  LTNY remains the premier event.

One trend that I’ll comment on is the new rules.  I didn’t think the rules would make that much difference.  Maybe they would be somewhat helpful.  But, what I’m seeing in practice is that they’ve been very helpful.  They really seem to help lawyers to “get it”.  Proportionality is not a new message for me, but having it in the rules, I have found more helpful than I thought.  So far, so good, knock on wood – that has been a pleasant surprise.  I’m upbeat about that and the whole notion of proportionality, which we’ve really needed.  I’ve been talking about proportionality for at least five years and, finally, it really seems to have caught on now, particularly with having the rules, so I’m upbeat about that.

I’ve observed that there seems to be a drop off in sessions this year discussing predictive coding and technology assisted review (TAR).  Do you agree and, if so, why do you think that is?

I read that too, but it seems like I’ve seen several sessions that are discussing TAR.  I’ve noticed at least four, maybe five sessions that are covering it.  I noticed that FTI was sponsoring sessions related to TAR and Kroll was as well.  So, I’m not sure that I agree with that 100%.  I think that the industry’s near obsession with it in some of the prior shows is maybe not a fair benchmark in terms of how much attention it is getting.  Since it’s my area of special expertise, I would probably always want to see it get more attention, but I realize that there are a number of other concerns.  One possible reason for less coverage, if that is the case, is that TAR is less controversial than it once was.  Judges have all accepted it – nobody has said “no, it’s too risky”.  So, I think a lot of the initial “newsworthiness” of it is gone.

As I stated in my talk today, the reality is that the use of TAR requires training via the old fashioned legal apprenticeship tradition.  I teach people how to do it by their shadowing me, just like when I first learned how to try a case when I carried the briefcase of the trial lawyer.  And, after a while, somebody carried my briefcase.  Predictive coding is the same way.  People are carrying my briefcase now and learning how to do it, and pretty soon, they’ll do it on their own.  It only takes a couple of matters watching how I do it for somebody to pick it up.  After that, they might contact me if they run into something unusual and troublesome.  Otherwise, I think it’s just getting a lot simpler – the software is getting better and it’s easier to do.  You don’t need to be a rocket scientist.

My big thing is to expose the misuse of the secret control set that was making it way too complicated.  No one has stood up in defense of the secret control set, so I think I’m succeeding in getting rid of one of the last obstacles to adopting predictive coding – this nonsense about reviewing and coding 10,000 random documents before you even start looking for the evidence.  That was crazy.  I’ve shown, and others have too, that it’s just not necessary.  It overcomplicates matters and, if anything, it allows for a greater potential for error, not less as was its intent.  We’ve cleaned up predictive coding, gotten rid of some mistaken approaches, the software is getting better and people are getting more knowledgeable, so there’s just no longer the need to have every other session be about predictive coding.

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

It is the trend and it will be the trend for the next 20 or 30 years.  We’re just seeing the very beginning of it.  The first way it has impacted the legal profession is through document review and the things that I’m doing.  I love artificial intelligence because I need the help of artificial intelligence to boost my own limited intelligence.  I can only remember so many things at once, I make mistakes, I’m only human.  So, I believe that AI is going to augment the lawyers that are able to use it and they are going to be able to do much, much more than before.  I can do the work of one hundred linear reviewers with no problem, by using a software AI enhancement.

It’s not going to put lawyers out of work, but it is going to reduce the volume of menial tasks in the law.  For mental tasks that a lawyer can do that require just simple logic, a computer can do those tasks better than a human can do them.  Simple rules-based applications, reviewing documents – there are many things that lawyers do that a computer can do better.  But, there are also many, many things that only a human can do.  We’re nowhere near actually replacing lawyers and I don’t think we ever will.

Just like all of the great technology doesn’t replace doctors in the medical profession – it just makes them better, makes them able to do miraculous things.  The same thing will happen in the law.  There will be lawyers, but they will be able to do what, by today’s standards, would look miraculous.  How did that lawyer know how that judge was going to rule so exactly?  That’s one of the areas we’re getting into with AI – predicting not just the coding of documents, but predicting how judges will rule.  Right now, that’s an art form, but that’s the next big step in big data.  They are already starting to do that in the patent world where they already have a pretty good idea how certain judges will rule on certain things.  So, that’s the next application of AI that is coming down the road.

I think the continued advancement of AI and automation will be good for lawyers who adapt.  For the lawyers that get technology and spend the time to learn it, the future looks good.  For those who don’t and want to keep holding on to the “buggy whip”, they will find that the cars pass them by.

It seems like acquisition and investment in the eDiscovery market is accelerating, with several acquisitions and VC investments in providers in just the past few months.  Do you feel that we are beginning to see true consolidation in the market?

Yes, I think it’s more than just beginning – I think it’s well underway.  And, I think that’s a good thing.  Why?  Because there are so many operations that are not solid, that, in a more sophisticated market, wouldn’t survive.  But, because many legal markets around the country are not sophisticated about eDiscovery, they are able to sell services to people who just don’t know any better and I don’t think these people are helping the legal profession.  So, consolidation is good.  I’m not saying that “new blood” isn’t good too, if those providers are really good at what they do.  But, I think that’s a natural result of the marketplace itself becoming more sophisticated.

However, I do think the entire industry is vulnerable someday to extreme consolidation if Google and IBM decide to take an interest in it.  I’ve long predicted that, at the end of the day, there will be three or four players.  Aside from Google and IBM, who that will be, I don’t know.  Maybe Google and IBM will never go into it.  But, I believe Google will go into it and I think IBM will do so too.  While I don’t have any inside knowledge to that effect, I think they’re probably researching it.  I think they would be silly not to research it, but I don’t think they have a big staff devoted to it.

I read about this a lot because I’m curious about IBM in particular and I think that IBM is focusing all of its resources right now on medicine and doctors.  They do have a booth here and they do have some eDiscovery focus, particularly on preservation and the left side of the EDRM model.  What they don’t have yet is “Watson, the review lawyer”.  In fact, I have said this in my Twitter account that if there ever is a “Watson, the review lawyer”, I challenge him.  They can beat Jeopardy, but when it comes to things as sophisticated as legal analysis, I don’t think they’re there yet. Several of our existing e-Discovery vendor software is better. Anybody could beat a regular human, but when it comes to beating an “automated human”, I don’t think IBM is there yet. I bet IBM will have to buy out another e-discovery vendor to enhance their Watson algorithms.  I hope I’m still practicing when they are ready, because I’d like to take them on.  Maybe I’ll get beaten, but it would be fun to try and I think I can win, unless they happen to buy the vendor I use. Regardless, I think it’s clear that technology is going to keep getting better and better, but so will the tech savvy lawyers who use the technology to augment their human abilities of search and legal analysis. The key is the combination of Man and Machine, which is what I call the “hybrid” approach.

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

I am looking into the feasibility of having an eDiscovery “hackathon”.  If you’ve heard of a regular “hackathon”, you get the idea.  This would be a 24 hour event where the technology providers who think they are the best in document review come together and compete.  It would be a fair and open content, run by scientists, where everybody has the same chance.  Scientists will compute the scores and determine who obtained the best recall and best precision to determine a winner.  It would be a way for us to generate interest the same way that cybersecurity does, using a live event to allow people to watch how high-tech lawyers do it.  I think you would be amazed how much information can be found in 24 hours, if you’re using the technology right.  It will be a proving ground for those vendors who think they have good software.  Basically, I’m saying “show me”, “put up or shut up”.

The reality is, my presentation today was on TREC and I showed up with Kroll Ontrack – the only other vendor to show up was Catalyst, nobody else showed up.  So, I’m going to make it easier and say “it’s 24 hours, compete!”  Anybody can say that they’re great, but show me – I want to see it to believe it.  Everybody loves competition – it’s fun.  My concern is all the other vendors will be too risk adverse to compete against us. They are just empty suits.

For me, it’s exciting to do document review.  I enjoy document review and if you don’t enjoy document review, you’re doing something wrong.  You’re not really harnessing the power of artificial intelligence.  Because working with a robot at your side that’s helping you find evidence can be a lot of fun.  It’s somewhat like an Easter egg hunt – it’s fun to look for things when you have the help of AI to do the heavy lifting for you.   Review a million documents?  No problem if you have a good AI robot at your side.

So, I’m thinking of ways to show the world what eDiscovery can do and, within our community, to see who are among us is really the best.  I have won before, so I think I can do it again, but you never know. There are many other great search attorneys out there. If we do pull it off with a hackathon, or something like that, there may not be one clear winner, but there may be a few that do better than others. It’s never been done before and I like to do things that have never been done before. But it will not happen unless other vendors step up to the plate and have the confidence to dare to compete. Time will tell…

Thanks, Ralph, for participating in the interview!

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

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

Predictive Coding is Officially Approved in First English Case: eDiscovery Case Law

Last month, in Pyrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property Ltd [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch), citing the landmark DaSilva Moore case (among other authorities), Master Matthews approved the use of predictive coding, due to the “enormous” expense of manually searching through the three million electronic documents associated with the case.  This is the believed to be the first time an English court has approved the use of predictive coding.

In this case, the parties, through several rounds of correspondence, “agreed on the (automated) method to be employed”, which “involves ‘predictive coding’”, and “also the scope of the keywords to be employed”.  Citing DaSilva Moore, Master Matthews referenced several comments in Judge Peck’s decision nearly four years earlier, including:

“The decision to allow computer-assisted review in this case was relatively easy – the parties agreed to its use (although disagreed about how best to implement such review). The Court recognises that computer-assisted review is not a magic, Staples-easy-Button, solution appropriate for all cases. The technology exists and should be used where appropriate, but it is not a case of machine replacing humans: it is the process used and the interaction of man and machine that the court needs to examine…The goal is for the review method to result in higher recall and higher precision than another review method, at cost proportionate to the ‘value’ of the case… Computer-assisted review appears to be better than the available alternatives, and thus should be used in appropriate cases.”

Master Matthews also referenced Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Quinn, where the Irish High Court also endorsed the use of predictive coding.  In that case, the process was proposed by the plaintiffs and approved by the court over the objections by the defendants.

In approving the use of predictive coding in this case, Master Matthews provided these factors in favor of the decision {emphasis added}:

“(1)          Experience in other jurisdictions, whilst so far limited, has been that predictive coding software can be useful in appropriate cases.

(2)           There is no evidence to show that the use of predictive coding software leads to less accurate disclosure being given than, say, manual review alone or keyword searches and manual review combined, and indeed there is some evidence (referred to in the US and Irish cases to which I referred above) to the contrary,

(3)           Moreover, there will be greater consistency in using the computer to apply the approach of a senior lawyer towards the initial sample (as refined) to the whole document set, than in using dozens, perhaps hundreds, of lower-grade fee-earners, each seeking independently to apply the relevant criteria in relation to individual documents.

(4)           There is nothing in the CPR or Practice Directions to prohibit the use of such software.

(5)           The number of electronic documents which must be considered for relevance and possible disclosure in the present case is huge, over 3 million.

(6)           The cost of manually searching these documents would be enormous, amounting to several million pounds at least, hr my judgment, therefore, a full manual review of each document would be “unreasonable” within paragraph 25 of Practice Direction B to Part 31, at least where a suitable automated alternative exists at lower cost.

(7)           The costs of using predictive coding software would depend on various factors, including importantly whether the number of documents is reduced by keyword searches, but the estimates given in this case vary between £181,988 plus monthly hosting costs of £15,717, to £469,049 plus monthly hosting costs of £20,820. This is obviously far less expensive than the full manual alternative, though of course there may be additional costs if manual reviews still need to be carried out when the software has done its best.

(8)           The ‘value’ of the claims made in this litigation is in the tens of millions of pounds. In my judgment the estimated costs of using the software are proportionate.

(9)           The trial in the present case is not until June 2017, so there would be plenty of time to consider other disclosure methods if for any reason the predictive software route turned out to be unsatisfactory.

(10)         The parties have agreed on the use of the software, and also how to use it, subject only to the approval of the Court.”

In approving the use of predictive coding in this case, Master Matthews also stated that “There were no factors of any weight pointing in the opposite direction.”  And, saving us the trouble of checking to see if there were any previous English cases that approved predictive coding, he noted that “a search of the BAILII online database for ‘predictive coding software’ returned no hits at all, and for ‘predictive coding’ and ‘computer-assisted review’ only the Irish case referred to above.”

In his blog, eDisclosure Information Project, Chris Dale (whose thought leader interview on this blog was published last Friday), posted his reaction to the decision and referenced several other blogs and publications with their coverage of the decision as well.

So, what do you think?  Will this case become the “DaSilva Moore” for English courts?  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.

Brad Jenkins of CloudNine: eDiscovery Trends

This is the first 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 Brad Jenkins of CloudNine™.  Brad has over 20 years of experience as an entrepreneur, as well as 15 years leading customer focused companies in the litigation technology arena. Brad also has authored several articles on document management and litigation support issues, and has appeared as a speaker before national audiences on document management practices and solutions.  He’s also my boss!  :o)

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it compared to other LTNY shows that you have attended?

Again this year, LTNY seemed reasonably well attended.  Thankfully, we didn’t have the weather and travel issues that we had the past few years, so that probably helped boost attendance.  And, the Hilton Lobby Lounge was back this year, so that provided an additional location to meet, though most of our meetings were in our suite.  Though I was really busy and didn’t get much chance to attend sessions, I understand that they were very good as always.  I did notice a drop in the number of exhibitors again this year and the exhibit hall did seem to be less crowded.  One colleague of mine who exhibited indicated that the number of leads he received at the show dropped about 30 percent from last year, so that’s consistent with my own observations and those of my colleagues.

For me, LTNY has become as much about the meetings with colleagues and business partners as it is about the show itself.  CloudNine had meetings practically booked throughout the show, with various people including industry analysts, partners and potential partners and clients and prospects.  Because it is the biggest show of the year, most people in the industry attend, so it’s an ideal opportunity to meet face to face and move business relationships along further.  Sometimes, there is just no substitute for in-person meetings to further business relationships and to communicate your message to other business colleagues.

What about general industry trends?  Are there any notable trends that you’ve observed?

Certainly one trend that I have noticed, as others have certainly noticed, is the accelerated consolidation within our industry within the provider community and the growth of investment of outside venture capital firms in our industry.  Just in the past couple of months, we have seen Huron Legal acquired by Consilio (which received a major investment from Shamrock Capital Advisors a few months before that), Millnet acquired by Advanced Discovery, Orange Legal acquired by Xact Data Discovery and Kiersted Systems acquired by OmniVere.  Rob Robinson does a terrific job of tracking mergers, acquisitions and investments in our industry and, according to his list, there have been eleven significant acquisitions and investments in just the past three months!

Another noticeable trend in the industry is the clear trend toward automation within eDiscovery.  You wrote about it earlier this year and, like you, I believe that the age of automation is here.  Some have dismissed the term “automation” as a marketing term, but I can’t think of a better term to describe the transformation of tasks that used to require a high degree of manual intervention and supervision to a point where little, if any, human involvement is necessary.  We’ve seen it for years through automation of review with technology assisted review techniques such as clustering and predictive coding and we have begun to see use of some artificial intelligence techniques on the information governance side.  Now, we are seeing automation of the processing of data to get it into a review platform and cloud-based providers (including CloudNine) automating that process.

Having been in the legal technology industry for many years, I have really seen an evolution of technology offerings in the marketplace.  At the beginning, I saw applications that were originally developed for other purposes being adapted for eDiscovery and those solutions were incomplete.  As the market developed, there started to be applications that were specifically designed for eDiscovery and those solutions were an improvement, but they were designed for isolated processes, such as collection or processing or review, with no automation of tasks.  The next generation of solutions were designed for eDiscovery and designed for task integration, but still adapted for task automation – some of those are the most popular solutions in the market today.  The new solutions – the “fourth generation” technology offerings are not only designed for eDiscovery and designed for task integration, they’re designed for task automation as well.

Many people say that if you want to tell where an industry is heading, follow the money.  In the past several months, you’ve seen providers like Logikcull and Everlaw that emphasize automation receive significant capital investments and, just before LTNY, you saw Thomson Reuters announce a new platform where automated processing is a key component.  It’s clear that big money is being invested in the growing automation sector of the industry.  You can get on the bus, or you can get run over by the bus.  As a provider that has been committed to simplified eDiscovery automation for several years now, CloudNine is on the bus and we feel that we have an excellent “seat” on that bus and are well positioned to help usher eDiscovery into the automation age.

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

Well, since I was just talking about fourth generation technology solutions, it seems appropriate to discuss how CloudNine has gotten to the point where we are in that evolution.  About 3 1/2 years ago at CloudNine, we looked at our legacy platform that had been in place since the early 2000s and was on version 14.  Our clients were happy with the platform overall, but we realized that if we were going to stay competitive as the market evolved, our legacy platform wasn’t going to be able to support those future needs.  So, we made the decision to almost completely start from scratch and re-develop our platform from the ground up, using the latest technology with an eye toward a truly simplified eDiscovery automation approach.  The platform that you see today via the user interface is just the tip of the iceberg of the overall solution – behind it is a series of workflows to accomplish various tasks.  For example, there are 34 distinct workflows (our CTO and co-founder Bill David calls them “cascading buckets“ that enable the workflows to scale) just in our Discovery Client application that enables clients to upload and process data into our CloudNine review platform.  This modularized approach of putting together re-usable workflows enables us to both scale and adapt as needed to meet changing client needs and positions us well for the future.

We feel that CloudNine is the leader in simplifying eDiscovery automation.  We do this through what we call the 4 S’s: Speed, Simplicity, Security and Services.  Clients, even brand new clients, can be up and running in five minutes (Speed) through their ability to sign up for their own account and upload and process their own data.  We recently had a brand new client who signed up for an account, uploaded and processed 27 GB of Outlook PST files (which amounted to over 300,000 emails and attachments) and culled out nearly two-thirds of the collection via HASH deduplication and irrelevant domain culling – all within 24 hours without ever having to speak to a CloudNine representative!  The ease of use (Simplicity) of the platform through the wizard-based client application for uploading data and a browser independent review module enables our clients to get up to speed with no more than an hour (or less) of training required.

Our approach to Security is unique as well – we operate within a protected cloud, not a public cloud, where the clients know that their data will be located on our servers in a Tier IV data center that is located 5 minutes from our offices.  This data center hosts data for nine of the top Fortune 20 corporations and was instrumental in us being selected over a year ago by a Fortune 150 corporation to host their data.  Finally, what makes us unique are the Services that we provide to support the software and automation – in addition to the software that we provide to help automate the eDiscovery process, we also provide managed services ranging from forensic collection to data conversion to technical advice and eDiscovery best practices and managed document review.  This enables our clients to rely on one provider for all of their services needs – as opposed to software-only providers that would have to outsource those services to a third party.

We believe that the combination of Speed, Simplicity, Security and Services enables CloudNine to provide the simplified eDiscovery automation approach that our clients want.  It’s an exciting time in our industry and CloudNine is excited to be forefront in its continued evolution, as we have been for the last 13 years!

Thanks, Brad, 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.

Dispute Over Adequacy of Defendant’s Production Leads to Court Ordered Meet and Confer: eDiscovery Case Law

In Gardner et. al. v. Continental Casualty Company, No. 13-1918 (D. Conn., Jan. 13, 2016), Connecticut Magistrate Judge Joan Glazer Margolis, granting the plaintiff’s motion to compel in part, ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding “’sampling and iterative confinement’ or ‘quick peek protocol’ of the 38,000 documents ‘hit’ by the agreed upon search terms and notify the court in writing “about their progress, or lack thereof, on or before February 12, 2016.”

Case Background

In this class action for violations of Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, the parties agreed (after some negotiation) to a list of search terms from the e-mail of twenty-three custodians, which resulted in a return of approximately 38,000 documents.  However, after the defendant reviewed these documents for relevancy and privilege, it produced only 2,214 pages, of which 274 pages consisted of copies of the complaints, with exhibits, filed in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel, arguing that the defendant “cherry-picked” the produced documents and called the production “incomplete and inadequate”, citing to four documents where they contended that the defendant redacted or omitted “highly relevant” materials.  The defendant countered that it had provided the plaintiffs with extensive discovery over twenty-two months, including 16,800 pages of documents and indicated that it “spent significant resources reviewing the 38,000 documents identified as the result of the search term process,” and provided their own justification for the redactions in the four documents mentioned by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs responded that they did not accept the defendant’s “just trust us” approach to relevancy, that “the entire exercise of agreeing on search terms was to avoid a prolonged and detailed debate over what ESI documents are `responsive’ to the discovery requests”, that ESI production based on search term hits only “is a common discovery practice ordered by courts,” and that documents provided by LTCG (the defendant’s third-party claims administrator) were far more comprehensive and informative than those provided by the defendant, confirming that the defendant’s “ESI production is woefully deficient.”

Judge’s Ruling

In considering the plaintiff’s motion, Judge Margolis stated that the “position taken by plaintiffs is simply untenable – defendant is not obligated to turn over all 38,000 documents, after a review eliminates some on the basis of privilege…As every law school student and law school graduate knows, when performing a computer search on WESTLAW and/or LEXIS, not every case responsive to a search command will prove to be relevant to the legal issues for which the research was performed. Searching tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands, of electronic documents is no different. The Court shares, however, plaintiffs’ legitimate concern that LTCG produced different, and obviously relevant, documents that were not provided by defendant itself.”

To attempt to have the parties resolve the dispute themselves, Judge Margolis ordered that “counsel shall confer further regarding variations of two approaches discussed in the Strauch Ruling — ‘sampling and iterative refinement’ or ‘quick peek protocol’ – of the 38,000 documents ‘hit’ by the agreed upon search terms, and shall notify the Magistrate Judge, in writing, about their progress, or lack thereof, on or before February 12, 2016.”  As for the four redacted documents in dispute, Judge Margolis ordered the defendant to forward unredacted versions “for her in camera review, to determine if defendant’s redactions were appropriate or overbroad with respect to those four documents”.

So, what do you think?  Was that a reasonable resolution to the dispute or should the court have ruled one way or the other?  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.

KMWorld Highlights CloudNine and Simplified eDiscovery

Extract from article in KMWorld by Judith Lamont on January 31, 2016: CloudNine is a cloud-based product used for e-discovery and investigation. The company also provides professional services to organizations that want to delegate some or all of their discovery tasks to a third party. CloudNine is designed to be simple to use, with a straightforward online process for uploading, reviewing and producing electronically stored information for litigation and investigations.

“Although we are CloudNine, we are not cloud-based the way most people think of it,” says Brad Jenkins, president and CEO of CloudNine. “We use a private infrastructure, and the data is highly secure, residing on dedicated servers on a dedicated network in a Tier 4 data center. We don’t use the public cloud at all.” Two pricing models are available; pay-as-you-go plans start at $25/GB per month, which includes 30 days of hosting but does not include processing (normally $100/GB for self-service processing). Subscription plans start at $1,000 per month, which includes unlimited self-service processing and up to 50GB of hosting.

The customers for CloudNine have typically been companies that provided litigation support as well as small to medium-sized law firms. Recently, larger law firms have started to use it to manage e-discovery for their clients, and that group of customers now includes dozens of firms, including more than 50 of the top 250 law firms. In addition, large (Fortune 100) corporations are using CloudNine for internal investigations and compliance.

CloudNine uses dtSearch as its search software. “It indexes very quickly,” says Doug Austin, VP of professional services, “and handles a range of file types from e-mail to documents and database information.” As for processing, CloudNine automatically unpacks the data, pulls out metadata and text and uses OCR to convert image files to searchable text.

“One thing that customers are very interested in is analytical capabilities,” Austin adds. “They want to be able to get an idea early on about whether they should settle or litigate. If they can analyze their data quickly, they can decide what their exposure is and then choose the best course of action. The simplified e-discovery automation that CloudNine provides enables our clients to perform that analysis and make those decisions quickly and effectively.”

Source: Article: Legal Applications of KM Trend Toward Flexibility, Simplicity

For the complete article, click here.

2015 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 3

As we noted yesterday and Tuesday, eDiscovery Daily published 89 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 72 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to disputes about discovery, eDiscovery cost reimbursement and issues related to privilege and confidentiality assertions.  Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to cooperation issues, social media and mobile phone discovery, technology assisted review and the first part of the cases relating to sanctions and spoliation.

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!

COOPERATION

Why can’t we all just get along?  There were several instances where parties couldn’t agree and had to kick issues up to the court for resolution, here are four such cases:

Judge Shows Her Disgust via “Order on One Millionth Discovery Dispute”: In Herron v. Fannie Mae, et al., DC District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer issued an order titled “Order on One Millionth Discovery Dispute” where she decided that “[c]ontrary to its usual practice, the Court will rule immediately, in writing” on the latest discovery disputes between the plaintiff and defendant.

Court’s “New and Simpler Approach to Discovery” Identifies Search Terms for Plaintiff to Use: In Armstrong Pump, Inc. v. Hartman, New York Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott granted in part the defendant’s motion to compel discovery responses and fashioned a “new and simpler approach” to discovery, identifying thirteen search terms/phrases for the plaintiff to use when searching its document collection.

Court Agrees to Allow Defendant to Use Search Terms to Identify ESI to Preserve: In You v. Japan, California District Judge William Alsup granted the defendant’s motion to limit preservation of articles to those that contain one of several relevant search terms, as long as the defendant’s proposal was amended to include one additional term requested by the plaintiffs.

Court Orders Defendant to Supplement Data Used for Statistical Sampling: In United States ex rel Guardiola v. Renown Health, Nevada Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke agreed with the relator’s contention that the data used to finalize the relator’s proposed statistical sampling plan was incomplete due to how data was identified within one of two billing systems used by the defendant. As a result, she ordered the defendant to “EXPEDITIOUSLY PRODUCE” the additional data (and, yes, she used all caps).

SOCIAL MEDIA

Requests for social media data in litigation continue, so here are three cases related to requests for social media data:

Court Rejects Defendants Motion Seeking Limitless Access to Plaintiff’s Facebook Account: In the class action In re Milo’s Kitchen Dog Treats Consolidated Cases, Pennsylvania Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly denied the defendants’ Motion to Compel Unredacted Facebook Data File and Production of Username and Password, disagreeing that the discovery of one highly relevant Facebook entry justified the defendants to be “somehow entitled to limitless access to her Facebook account”. Judge Kelly did order the plaintiff to produce previously produced redacted Facebook pages to the Court unredacted so that an in camera inspection could be conducted to confirm that the redacted information was truly privileged.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena of Text Messages Granted by Court: In Burdette v. Panola County, Mississippi Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander granted the plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena where the defendant subpoenaed the plaintiff’s text messages and call log records from his mobile provider.

When Claiming Workplace Injury, Facebook Posts Aren’t Handy, Man: In the case In Newill v. Campbell Transp. Co., Pennsylvania Senior District Judge Terrence F. McVerry ruled on the plaintiff’s motion in limine on miscellaneous matters by allowing the defendant to introduce Facebook posts into evidence that related to the plaintiff’s physical capabilities, but not those that related to his employability.

TECHNOLOGY ASSISTED REVIEW

Believe it or not, we only covered one technology assisted review case last year, at least officially.  Though, we did at least cover it twice.  Here is the case:

Judge Peck Wades Back into the TAR Pits with ‘Da Silva Moore Revisited’: In Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A., New York Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck approved the proposed protocol for technology assisted review (TAR) presented by the parties, but made it clear to note that “the Court’s approval ‘does not mean. . . that the exact ESI protocol approved here will be appropriate in all [or any] future cases that utilize [TAR].’”  Later on, Judge Peck assigned a well-respected industry thought leader as special master to the case.

SPOLIATION / SANCTIONS

I’ll bet that you won’t be surprised that, once again, the topic with the largest number of case law decisions related to eDiscovery are those related to sanctions and spoliation issues.  Of the 72 cases we covered this past year, 39 percent of them (28 total cases) related to sanctions and spoliation issues.  Sometimes requests for sanctions are granted, sometimes they’re not.  Here are the first ten cases:

Appeals Court Upholds Default Judgment Sanctions for Defendant’s Multiple Discovery Violations: In Long Bay Management Co., Inc. et. al. v. HAESE, LLC et. al., the Appeals Court of Massachusetts found that the default judge had not abused her discretion in ordering sanctions and assessing damages and ordered that the plaintiffs could submit a petition for appellate attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to the appeal.

Court Grants Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Use of Spoliation Evidence: In West v. Talton, Georgia District Judge C. Ashley Royal granted the defendants’ Motion in Limine to exclude all evidence and argument regarding spoliation, reserving its ruling on the remaining issues in the Motion in Limine.

Not Preserving Texts Results in Adverse Inference Sanctions for Plaintiff: In NuVasive, Inc. v. Madsen Med., Inc., California Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz granted the defendants’ motion for adverse inference sanctions for failure to preserve text messages from four custodial employees that were key to the case.

Court States that Duty to Meet and Confer is Not an “Empty Formality”, Denies Request for Sanctions: In Whitesell Corporation v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. et. al., Georgia District Judge J. Randal Hall denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against the defendant for identifying a deponent that (according to the plaintiff) had no particularized information regarding the defendant’s efforts to produce documents, stating that he was “unimpressed” by the plaintiff’s effort to confer on the matter and stating that the “duty-to-confer is not an empty formality”.

Despite Failure to Implement a Litigation Hold, Defendant Escapes Sanctions: In Flanders v. Dzugan et. al., despite the fact that the defendant failed to implement a litigation hold, Pennsylvania District Judge Nora Barry Fischer denied the plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions alleging the defendants failed to preserve evidence relevant to the case, finding that the plaintiff “cannot show any evidence was actually lost or destroyed”, “cannot show that if evidence was lost or destroyed, it would have been beneficial to his case” and “[n]or can Plaintiff show bad faith”.

Court Denies Motion for Sanctions Against Veterinary Hospital for Spoliation of ESI: In Grove City Veterinary Service, LLC et. al. v. Charter Practices International, LLC, Oregon Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta concluded that the plaintiffs had not met their burden of showing they are entitled to sanctions for spoliation of evidence by deleting one of the veterinarian’s archived work emails.

Defendant Gets Summary Judgment, Not Dismissal, Due to Plaintiff’s Wiping of Hard Drive: In Watkins v. Infosys, 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.

Court Rules that State Agency is Not Responsible for Emails Deleted via the Retention Policy of Another State Agency: In Wandering Dago, Inc. v. N.Y. State Office of Gen. Servs., New York Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions, stating that “that neither the individual Defendants nor their Attorney had a duty to preserve” the emails of the Deputy Secretary of Gaming and Racing to the President of the New York Racing Authority (“NYRA”).

Apparently, in Discovery, Delta is Not Ready When You Are and It Has Cost Them Millions: A few years ago, we covered a case law decision in the Delta/Air Tran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litigation, where Delta was ordered to pay plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs for eDiscovery issues in that litigation. Apparently, Delta’s difficulties in this case have continued, as they have been ordered this week to pay over $2.7 million in sanctions for failing to turn over ESI, to go along with more than $4.7 million in sanctions for earlier discovery violations.

Court Denies Request for Sanctions for Routine Deletion of Files of Departed Employees: In Charvat et. al. v. Valente et. al., Illinois Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland denied the plaintiff’s request for spoliation sanctions for the defendant’s admitted destruction of computer files belonging to two departed employees, finding that the plaintiff did not provide any evidence that the defendant acted in bad faith.

Tomorrow, we will cover the remaining cases relating to sanctions and spoliation.  Stay tuned!

Want to take a look at cases we covered the previous four years?  Here they are:

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.

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.

Two Cases Regarding Overtime Pay for Contract Attorneys with Mixed Results: eDiscovery Trends

Last July, we covered a case where a contract review attorney filed a lawsuit demanding overtime pay from law firm Skadden, Arps and legal staffing agency Tower Legal Solutions, alleging that the highly managed review work that he performed should not be considered the practice of law because he was not required to exercise any legal judgment.  That case and one other have concluded (pending appeal) with mixed results.

In the first case, the plaintiff, David Lola, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed the case as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action against Skadden, Arps and Tower Legal Staffing.  He alleged that, beginning in April 2012, he worked for the defendants for fifteen months in North Carolina, working 45 to 55 hours per week and was paid $25 per hour for document review.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing (among other things) that Lola was engaged in the practice of law as defined by North Carolina law, and was therefore an exempt employee under FLSA.  The district court granted the motion, but the appellate court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the matter for further proceedings, stating that “we find that Lola adequately alleged in his complaint that he failed to exercise any legal judgment in performing his duties for Defendants”.

Last month, the parties settled their lawsuit for a fraction of their “maximum liquidated damages,” according to a letter the plaintiff’s attorney (D. Maimon Kirschenbaum) wrote to the judge.  Tower paid $75,000 according to a settlement agreement that was attached to the letter, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan last month.  So, the plaintiffs received at least some compensation in this case.

In the other case, a Federal judge ruled that William Henig, a lawyer doing document review work for Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (and represented by the same plaintiff’s attorney – Kirschenbaum – as the Lola case) wasn’t entitled to overtime pay because he was using legal judgment.

Henig had claimed he did not exercise legal judgment while reviewing about 13,000 documents for about two months in 2012 (making $35 an hour) while working as a temporary contract lawyer for Quinn Emanuel to determine relevance to a discovery request.  In making his ruling, Southern District Judge Ronnie Abrams stated “Not all of [mass document review] is law at its grandest but all of it is the practice of law. Mr. Henig was engaged in that practice.”  We’ll see if Henig chooses to appeal and has any success (like Lola did).  As for plaintiff’s attorney Kirschenbaum, you win some, you lose some… :o)

So, what do you think?  Are document reviewers practicing law?  If not, should they be entitled to overtime pay?  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.

Organize Your Collection by Message Thread to Save Costs During Review: eDiscovery Best Practices

This topic came up recently with a client, so I thought it was timely to revisit…

Not only is insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, but in eDiscovery review, it can be even worse when you do get a different result.

One of the biggest challenges when reviewing electronically stored information (ESI) is identifying duplicates so that your reviewers aren’t reviewing the same files again and again.  Not only does that drive up costs unnecessarily, but it could lead to problems if the same file is categorized differently by different reviewers (for example, inadvertent production of a duplicate of a privileged file if it is not correctly categorized).

There are a few ways to identify duplicates.  Exact duplicates (that contain the exact same content in the same file format) can be identified through hash values, which are a digital fingerprint of the content of the file.  MD5 and SHA-1 are the most popular hashing algorithms, which can identify exact duplicates of a file, so that they can be removed from the review population.  Since many of the same emails are emailed to multiple parties and the same files are stored on different drives, deduplication through hashing can save considerable review costs.

Sometimes, files are exact (or nearly exact) duplicates in content but not in format.  One example is a Word document published to an Adobe PDF file – the content is the same, but the file format is different, so the hash value will be different.  Near-deduplication can be used to identify files where most or all of the content matches so they can be verified as duplicates and eliminated from review.

Another way to identify duplicative content is through message thread analysis.  Many email messages are part of a larger discussion, which could be just between two parties, or include a number of parties in the discussion.  To review each email in the discussion thread would result in much of the same information being reviewed over and over again.  Instead, message thread analysis pulls those messages together and enables them to be reviewed as an entire discussion.  That includes any side conversations within the discussion that may or may not be related to the original topic (e.g., a side discussion about lunch plans or did you see The Walking Dead last night).

CloudNine’s review platform (shameless plug warning!) is one example of an application that provides a mechanism for message thread analysis of Outlook emails that pulls the entire thread into one conversation for review in a popup window.  By doing so, you can focus your review on the last emails in each conversation to see what is said without having to review each email.

With message thread analysis, you can minimize review of duplicative information within emails, saving time and cost and ensuring consistency in the review.

So, what do you think?  Does your review tool support message thread analysis?   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.