Close
Enter your
text here

Review

2014 eDiscovery Case Law Yhttps://cloudnine.com/ediscoverydaily/case-law/2014-ediscovery-case-law-year-in-review-part-3/ear in Review, Part 3

As we noted yesterday and the day before, eDiscoveryDaily published 93 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 68 unique cases! Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to eDiscovery cost sharing and reimbursement, fee disputes and production format disputes. Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to privilege and inadvertent disclosures, requests for social media, cases involving technology assisted review and the case of the year – the ubiquitous Apple v. Samsung dispute.

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

There were a couple of cases related to privilege issues, including one where privilege was upheld when the plaintiff purchased the defendant’s seized computer at auction! Here are two cases where disclosure of privileged documents was addressed:

Privilege Not Waived on Defendant’s Seized Computer that was Purchased by Plaintiff at Auction: In Kyko Global Inc. v. Prithvi Info. Solutions Ltd., Washington Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman ruled that the defendants’ did not waive their attorney-client privilege on the computer of one of the defendants purchased by plaintiffs at public auction, denied the defendants’ motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s counsel for purchasing the computer and ordered the plaintiffs to provide defendants with a copy of the hard drive within three days for the defendants to review it for privilege and provide defendants with a privilege log within seven days of the transfer.

Plaintiff Can’t “Pick” and Choose When it Comes to Privilege of Inadvertent Disclosures: In Pick v. City of Remsen, Iowa District Judge Mark W. Bennett upheld the magistrate judge’s order directing the destruction of an inadvertently-produced privileged document, an email from defense counsel to some of the defendants, after affirming the magistrate judge’s analysis of the five-step analysis to determine whether privilege was waived.

SOCIAL MEDIA

Requests for social media data in litigation continue, though there were not as many disputes over it as in years past (at least, not with cases we covered). Here are three cases related to social media data:

Plaintiff Ordered to Produce Facebook Photos and Messages as Discovery in Personal Injury Lawsuit: In Forman v. Henkin, a Motion to Compel was granted in part for a defendant who requested authorization to obtain records of the plaintiff’s private postings to Facebook.

Plaintiff Ordered to Re-Open Social Media Account for Discovery: In Chapman v. Hiland Operating, LLC, while noting that he was “skeptical” that reactivating the plaintiff’s Facebook account would produce any relevant, noncumulative information, North Dakota Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller ordered the plaintiff to “make a reasonable, good faith attempt” to reactivate her Facebook account.

Order for Financial Records and Facebook Conversations Modified Due to Privacy Rights: In Stallings v. City of Johnston City, Illinois Chief District Judge David R. Herndon modified an earlier order by a magistrate judge in response to the plaintiff’s appeal, claiming that the order violated the privacy rights of the plaintiff, and of minor children with whom the plaintiff had held conversations on Facebook.

TECHNOLOGY ASSISTED REVIEW

Technology assisted review continued to be discussed and debated between parties in 2014, with some disputes involving how technology assisted review would be conducted as opposed to whether it would be conducted at all. Courts continued to endorse technology assisted review and predictive coding, even going so far as to suggest the use of it in one case. Here are six cases involving the use of technology assisted review in 2014:

Court Rules that Unilateral Predictive Coding is Not Progressive: In In Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Delaney, Nevada Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen determined that the plaintiff’s unannounced shift from the agreed upon discovery methodology, to a predictive coding methodology for privilege review was not cooperative. Therefore, the plaintiff was ordered to produce documents that met agreed-upon search terms without conducting a privilege review first.

Court Rules in Dispute Between Parties Regarding ESI Protocol, Suggests Predictive Coding: In a dispute over ESI protocols in FDIC v. Bowden, Georgia Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith approved the ESI protocol from the FDIC and suggested the parties consider the use of predictive coding.

Court Sides with Defendant in Dispute over Predictive Coding that Plaintiff Requested: In the case In re Bridgepoint Educ., Inc., Securities Litigation, California Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt ruled that expanding the scope of discovery by nine months was unduly burdensome, despite the plaintiff’s request for the defendant to use predictive coding to fulfill its discovery obligation and also approved the defendants’ method of using search terms to identify responsive documents for the already reviewed three individual defendants, directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the additional search terms the plaintiffs requested.

Though it was “Switching Horses in Midstream”, Court Approves Plaintiff’s Predictive Coding Plan: In Bridgestone Americas Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., Tennessee Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown, acknowledging that he was “allowing Plaintiff to switch horses in midstream”, nonetheless ruled that that the plaintiff could use predictive coding to search documents for discovery, even though keyword search had already been performed.

Court Approves Use of Predictive Coding, Disagrees that it is an “Unproven Technology”: In Dynamo Holdings v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Texas Tax Court Judge Ronald Buch ruled that the petitioners “may use predictive coding in responding to respondent’s discovery request” and if “after reviewing the results, respondent believes that the response to the discovery request is incomplete, he may file a motion to compel at that time”.

Court Opts for Defendant’s Plan of Review including TAR and Manual Review over Plaintiff’s TAR Only Approach: In Good v. American Water Works, West Virginia District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. granted the defendants’ motion for a Rule 502(d) order that merely encouraged the incorporation and employment of time-saving computer-assisted privilege review over the plaintiffs’ proposal disallowing linear privilege review altogether.

APPLE V. SAMSUNG

Every now and then, there is a case that just has to be covered. Whether it be for the eDiscovery related issues (e.g., adverse inference sanction, inadvertent disclosures, eDiscovery cost reiumbursement) or the fact that billions of dollars were at stake or the fact that the case earned its own “gate” moniker, the Apple v. Samsung case demanded attention. Here are the six posts (just from 2014, we have more in previous years) about this case:

Quinn Emanuel Sanctioned for Inadvertent Disclosure, Samsung Escapes Sanction: California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal has now handed down an order on motions for sanctions against Samsung and the Quinn Emanuel law firm in the never-ending Apple v. Samsung litigation for the inadvertent disclosure of confidential agreements that Apple had with Nokia, Ericsson, Sharp and Philips – now widely referred to as “patentgate”.

Apple Can’t Mention Inadvertent Disclosure in Samsung Case: Back in January, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP was sanctioned for their inadvertent disclosure in the Apple vs Samsung litigation (commonly referred to as “patentgate”). California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal handed down an order on motions for sanctions against Quinn Emanuel (in essence) requiring the firm to “reimburse Apple, Nokia, and their counsel for any and all costs and fees incurred in litigating this motion and the discovery associated with it”. Many felt that Samsung and Quinn Emanuel got off lightly. Now, Apple can’t even mention the inadvertent disclosure in the upcoming Samsung trial.

Apple Wins Another $119.6 Million from Samsung, But It’s Only 6% of What They Requested: Those of you who have been waiting for significant news to report from the Apple v. Samsung litigation, your wait is over! As reported last week in The Recorder, a California Federal jury ordered Samsung on Friday to pay Apple $119.6 million for infringing three of Apple’s iPhone patents. However, the award was a fraction of the nearly $2.2 billion Apple was requesting.

Samsung and Quinn Emanuel Ordered to Pay Over $2 Million for “Patentgate” Disclosure: Remember the “patentgate” disclosure last year (by Samsung and their outside counsel firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) of confidential agreements that Apple had with Nokia? Did you think they were going to avoid having to pay for that disclosure? The answer is no.

Court Refuses to Ban Samsung from Selling Products Found to Have Infringed on Apple Products: Apple may have won several battles with Samsung, including ultimately being awarded over $1 billion in verdicts, as well as a $2 million sanction for the inadvertent disclosure of its outside counsel firm (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) commonly known as “patentgate”. But, Samsung has may have won the war with the court’s refusal to ban Samsung from selling products that were found to have infringed on Apple products.

Apple Recovers Part, But Not All, of its Requested eDiscovery Costs from Samsung: Apple won several battles with Samsung, including ultimately being awarded over $1 billion in verdicts, as well as a $2 million sanction for the inadvertent disclosure of its outside counsel firm (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) commonly known as “patentgate”, but ultimately may have lost the war when the court refused to ban Samsung from selling products that were found to have infringed on Apple products. Now, they’re fighting over relative chicken-feed in terms of a few million that Apple sought to recover in eDiscovery costs.

Tomorrow, we will cover cases related to the most common theme of the year (three guesses and the first two don’t count). Stay tuned!

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. eDiscoveryDaily 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.

Court Opts for Defendant’s Plan of Review including TAR and Manual Review over Plaintiff’s TAR Only Approach – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Good v. American Water Works, 2:14-01374 (S.D. W. Vir. Oct. 29, 2014), West Virginia District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. granted the defendants' motion for a Rule 502(d) order that merely encouraged the incorporation and employment of time-saving computer-assisted privilege review over the plaintiffs’ proposal disallowing linear privilege review altogether.

Case Background

In this class action litigation involving the Freedom Industries chemical spill, the parties met and conferred, agreeing on all but one discovery issue: privilege review and 502(d) clawbacks.  The defendants proposed that the Rule 502(d) order merely encourage the incorporation and employment of computer-assisted privilege review, while the plaintiffs proposed that the order “limit privilege review to what a computer can accomplish, disallowing linear (aka ‘eyes on’) privilege review altogether”.

The plaintiffs would agree only to a pure quick peek/claw-back arrangement, which would place never-reviewed, never privilege-logged documents in their hands as quickly as physically possible at the expense of any opportunity for care on the part of a producing party to protect a client's privileged and work product protected information.  On the other hand, the defendants did not wish to forego completely the option to manually review documents for privilege and work product protection. 

The plaintiffs argued that if they were to proceed with a manual privilege review, then only 502(b) protection – the inadvertent waiver rule – should apply, and not 502(d) protection, which offers more expansive protection against privilege waivers.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Copenhaver noted that “[t]he defendants have chosen a course that would allow them the opportunity to conduct some level of human due diligence prior to disclosing vast amounts of information, some portion of which might be privileged. They also appear to desire a more predictable clawback approach without facing the uncertainty inherent in the Rule 502(b) factoring analysis. Nothing in Rule 502 prohibits that course. And the parties need not agree in order for that approach to be adopted”.

Therefore, despite the fact that the plaintiffs were “willing to agree to an order that provides that the privilege or protection will not be waived and that no other harm will come to the Defendants if Plaintiffs are permitted to see privileged or work product protected documents”, Judge Copenhaver ruled that “[i]nasmuch as defendants' cautious approach is not prohibited by the text of Rule 502, and they appear ready to move expeditiously in producing documents in the case, their desired approach is a reasonable one.”  As a result, he entered their proposed Rule 502(d) order, “with the expectation that the defendants will marshal the resources necessary to assure that the delay occasioned by manual review of portions of designated categories will uniformly be minimized so that disclosure of the entirety of even the most sensitive categories is accomplished quickly.”

So, what do you think?  Should the defendants have retained the right to manual review or should the plaintiffs’ proposed approach have been adopted?  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.

Want an Automated, Easy and Inexpensive Way to Process Your Data? Read On – eDiscovery Trends

A couple of months ago, we had a laugh at Ralph Losey’s post that took a humorous look at the scenario where it’s Friday at 5 and you need data processed to be reviewed over the weekend.  It was a funny take on a real problem that most of us have experienced from time to time.  But, there may be a solution to this problem that’s automated, easy and inexpensive.

Anytime we talk about something that relates to our company, CloudNine Discovery, we always add the “shameless plug warning” to let people know that the topic relates to our software or a service we offer.  If you’re a regular reader of our blog, you know it doesn’t happen that often.  But, we have just made a major announcement that we believe will interest many of you.

Today, we are officially announcing the release of OnDemand Discovery®, our new application that enables you to upload your native data and have it processed and loaded directly into OnDemand®, our cloud-based online review tool.

It’s a 100% automated upload process that includes native file extraction from container files (such as Outlook PSTs and ZIP Files), metadata & text extraction and indexing, OCR of image files, duplicate identification and HTML creation, streamlining the process to get started reviewing documents for discovery.  The process automatically notifies you when we’ve received your data and then again when we’ve loaded and indexed it and when all processing (including advanced analytics for early data assessment) is complete.  So, you never have to wonder about the status of your processing job.

It’s ideal for situations where you receive data late on a Friday afternoon and have to get it ready to review over the weekend and also ideal for preparing small batches of files for review without having to run them through cumbersome processing software built for multiple gigabytes, not a small batch of files.  OnDemand Discovery is designed to handle two megabytes, two gigabytes or two hundred gigabytes or more!

There are three easy steps to give it a try:

  1. Sign up for a free account here.  You will receive an email with your credentials (including temporary password), to get started.
  2. When you first log in, you’ll see a button to “Upload Data”.  That will take you to a form to download the OnDemand Discovery client (which is a Windows based client application that resides on your desktop) for uploading data for processing.  Download and install the client to upload data.
  3. Once the client is downloaded and installed, launch the client, log in with your newly created credentials and simply follow the wizard prompts to upload the desired data set and put it into the project of your choice (which you can create if it doesn’t already exist).  It’s that easy!

For more information, feel free to check out our press release on our news page here.  You can also contact me at daustin@cloudnincloudnine.comm for more information as well.

And, 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 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.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid – eDiscovery Horrors!

Today is Halloween.  Every year at this time, because (after all) we’re an eDiscovery blog, we try to “scare” you with tales of eDiscovery horrors.  This is our fifth year of doing so, let’s see how we do this year.  Be afraid, be very afraid!

Did you know that overlaying Bates numbers on image-only Adobe PDF files causes the text of the image not to be captured by eDiscovery processing applications?

What about this?

Finding that the information was relevant and that the defendants “acted with a culpable state of mind” when they failed to preserve the data in its original form, New York Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis granted the plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions against the defendant, ordering the defendant to bear the cost of obtaining all the relevant data in question from a third party as well as paying for plaintiff attorney fees in filing the motion.

Or this?

It’s Friday at 5:00 and I need 15 gigabytes of data processed to review this weekend.

How about this?

Ultimately, it became clear that the defendant had not exported or preserved the data from salesforce.com and had re-used the plaintiffs’ accounts, spoliating the only information that could have addressed the defendant’s claim that the terminations were performance related (the defendant claimed did not conduct performance reviews of its sales representatives).  As a result, Judge Kemp stated that the “only realistic solution to this problem is to preclude Tellermate from using any evidence which would tend to show that the Browns were terminated for performance-related reasons”…

Or maybe this?

Could an “unconscionable” eDiscovery vendor actually charge nearly $190,000 to process 505 GB and host it for three months?  Could another vendor charge over $800,000 to re-process and host data (that it had previously hosted) for approximately two months?  Yes, in both cases (though, at least in the second case, the court disallowed over $700,000 of the billed costs).

Scary, huh?  If the possibility of additional processing charges for your PDF files, sanctions because you didn’t preserve data in its original format or preserve it in your cloud-based system or inflated eDiscovery vendor charges scares you, then the folks at eDiscovery Daily will do our best to provide useful information and best practices to enable you to relax and sleep soundly, even on Halloween!

Then again, if it really is Friday at 5:00 and you need 15 gigabytes of data processed to review this weekend (inexpensively, no less), maybe you should check this out.

Of course, if you seriously want to get into the spirit of Halloween, click here.  This will really terrify you!  (Rest in Peace, Robin)

What do you think?  Is there a particular eDiscovery issue that scares you?  Please share your comments and let us know if you’d like more information on a particular topic.

Happy Halloween!

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.

Battle Continues between Attorneys and Client over Attorneys’ Failure to Review Documents – eDiscovery Case Law

In Price Waicukauski & Riley v. Murray, 1:10-cv-1065-WTL-TAB (S.D. Ind. Sept. 18, 2014), Indiana District Judge William T. Lawrence granted the plaintiff’s request for summary judgment for failure to pay attorney’s fees of over $125,000, and refused to issue summary judgment for either party related to a legal malpractice claim for the plaintiff’s admitted failure to review documents produced in the defendants’ case against another party because of a factual dispute regarding the plaintiff’s knowledge of the documents produced.

Case Background

This case was filed in August 2010 by the Plaintiff, Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, (“PWR”) against the Defendants, Dennis and Margaret Murray and DPM, Ltd. (“Murrays”), to recover $127,592.91 in attorneys’ fees owed to the plaintiff. The attorneys’ fees stem from the plaintiff’s representation of the defendants in a rather contentious lawsuit against Conseco that spanned more than six years, ultimately settling.  In November 2010, unhappy with the plaintiff’s representation, the defendants filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff alleging legal malpractice.

Legal Malpractice Claim of Breach of Duty of Loyalty

The defendants alleged several allegations of legal malpractice against the plaintiff, including conflict of interest, failure to properly plead federal subject matter jurisdiction and failure to take depositions and conduct discovery as they requested, among other allegations.  One allegation related to the defendants’ claim that the plaintiff breached the duty of loyalty to the defendants by failing (despite the defendant’s request to do so) to review documents before production in the case that revealed a Trust set up on behalf of the plaintiffs that wasn’t disclosed in interrogatory responses.  The plaintiff informed Mr. Murray that it reviewed the documents; however, it ultimately admitted that it did not.  As a result of the misleading interrogatory responses, Conseco filed a motion for sanctions which was granted, resulting in the defendants being ordered to pay over $85,000 in attorneys’ fees to their opponent’s lawyers.

The defendants claimed that the plaintiff knew about the Trust from the outset of its representation; however, the plaintiff (“falsely and underhandedly”, according to the defendants) represented to the magistrate judge assigned to the Underlying Litigation that it had no knowledge of the Trust until the defendants’ accountant produced the Murrays’ tax returns.

Judge’s Analysis and Ruling

The plaintiffs referenced Niswander v. Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, where the court held that “[w]hether . . . the Plaintiffs’ attorneys had a duty to review the documents personally before producing them in discovery . . . is simply not something within the knowledge of a layperson.”  However, Judge Lawrence noted, “[t]he Murrays have no expert testimony on either of these two related claims; however, they claim they fall into the above-mentioned exception for when no expert testimony is needed: ‘when the question is within the common knowledge of the community as a whole or when an attorney’s negligence is so grossly apparent that a layperson would have no difficulty in appraising it.’”  Judge Lawrence also agreed with the defendants differentiation of Niswander to this case in that they specifically directed the plaintiff to review the documents while the plaintiffs in Niswander did not.

Judge Lawrence also stated that “[t]he same rings true with the Murrays’ allegation that PWR falsely denied knowledge of the Trust… Again, the Court believes that it is well within the knowledge of a layperson that attorneys should not lie and falsely implicate their own clients in order to shield themselves from liability. Thus, the Court agrees that no expert testimony is needed on this claim regarding the standard of care.”

However, Judge Lawrence decided that “neither party is entitled to summary judgment on this issue” because “there is a factual dispute that precludes granting summary judgment on this claim. PWR maintains that it did not lie; it steadfastly maintains that it had no knowledge of the Trust at the outset of the litigation. Thus, when asked by the magistrate judge when it found out about the Trust, it informed her truthfully. Therefore, whether or not PWR breached a duty that caused injury to the Murrays depends on whom the jury believes: Mr. Murray or PWR.”

Ultimately, Judge Lawrence granted the summary judgment on behalf of the plaintiffs for the attorney’s fees of $127,592.91 (which the defendant did not dispute, but argued that “[t]he successful pursuit of [their] claims would effectively eliminate PWR’s claim”) and denied the defendant’s summary judgment request, but refused a final judgment as outstanding claims remained against the plaintiff.  Judge Lawrence concluded his ruling by noting that “The only claims that remain to be tried are the proximate cause issue with regard to the federal subject matter jurisdiction claim and the allegation of malpractice committed by PWR as a result of its alleged failure to review certain documents that led to sanctions being imposed on Mr. Murray.”

So, what do you think?  Does the failure by the plaintiff to review the defendant’s production constitute legal malpractice?  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.

How Mature is Your Organization in Handling eDiscovery? – eDiscovery Best Practices

A new self-assessment resource from EDRM helps you answer that question.

A few days ago, EDRM announced the release of the EDRM eDiscovery Maturity Self-Assessment Test (eMSAT-1), the “first self-assessment resource to help organizations measure their eDiscovery maturity” (according to their press release linked here).

As stated in the press release, eMSAT-1 is a downloadable Excel workbook containing 25 worksheets (actually 27 worksheets when you count the Summary sheet and the List sheet of valid choices at the end) organized into seven sections covering various aspects of the e-discovery process. Complete the worksheets and the assessment results are displayed in summary form at the beginning of the spreadsheet.  eMSAT-1 is the first of several resources and tools being developed by the EDRM Metrics group, led by Clark and Dera Nevin, with assistance from a diverse collection of industry professionals, as part of an ambitious Maturity Model project.

The seven sections covered by the workbook are:

  1. General Information Governance: Contains ten questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of information governance.
  2. Data Identification, Preservation & Collection: Contains five questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of these “left side” phases.
  3. Data Processing & Hosting: Contains three questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of processing, early data assessment and hosting.
  4. Data Review & Analysis: Contains two questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of search and review.
  5. Data Production: Contains two questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of production and protecting privileged information.
  6. Personnel & Support: Contains two questions to answer regarding your organization’s hiring, training and procurement processes.
  7. Project Conclusion: Contains one question to answer regarding your organization’s processes for managing data once a matter has concluded.

Each question is a separate sheet, with five answers ranked from 1 to 5 to reflect your organization’s maturity in that area (with descriptions to associate with each level of maturity).  Default value of 1 for each question.  The five answers are:

  • 1: No Process, Reactive
  • 2: Fragmented Process
  • 3: Standardized Process, Not Enforced
  • 4: Standardized Process, Enforced
  • 5: Actively Managed Process, Proactive

Once you answer all the questions, the Summary sheet shows your overall average, as well as your average for each section.  It’s an easy workbook to use with input areas defined by cells in yellow.  The whole workbook is editable, so perhaps the next edition could lock down the calculated only cells.  Nonetheless, the workbook is intuitive and provides a nice exercise for an organization to grade their level of eDiscovery maturity.

You can download a copy of the eMSAT-1 Excel workbook from here, as well as get more information on how to use it (the page also describes how to provide feedback to make the next iterations even better).

The EDRM Maturity Model Self-Assessment Test is the fourth release in recent months by the EDRM Metrics team. In June 2013, the new Metrics Model was released, in November 2013 a supporting glossary of terms for the Metrics Model was published and in November 2013 the EDRM Budget Calculators project kicked off (with four calculators covered by us here, here, here and here).  They’ve been busy.

So, what do you think?  How mature is your organization in handling eDiscovery?  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.

Court Approves Use of Predictive Coding, Disagrees that it is an “Unproven Technology” – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Dynamo Holdings v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Docket Nos. 2685-11, 8393-12 (U.S. Tax Ct. Sept 17, 2014), Texas Tax Court Judge Ronald Buch ruled that the petitioners “may use predictive coding in responding to respondent's discovery request” and if “after reviewing the results, respondent believes that the response to the discovery request is incomplete, he may file a motion to compel at that time”.

The cases involved various transfers from one entity to a related entity where the respondent determined that the transfers were disguised gifts to the petitioner's owners and the petitioners asserted that the transfers were loans.

The respondent requested for the petitioners to produce the electronically stored information (ESI) contained on two specified backup storage tapes or simply produce the tapes themselves. The petitioners asserted that it would "take many months and cost at least $450,000 to do so", requesting that the Court deny the respondent's motion as a "fishing expedition" in search of new issues that could be raised in these or other cases. Alternatively, the petitioners requested that the Court let them use predictive coding to efficiently and economically identify the non-privileged information responsive to respondent's discovery request.  The respondent opposed the petitioners' request to use predictive coding, calling it "unproven technology" and added that petitioners could simply give him access to all data on the two tapes and preserve the right (through a "clawback agreement") to later claim that some or all of the data is privileged.

Judge Buch called the request to use predictive coding “somewhat unusual” and stated that “although it is a proper role of the Court to supervise the discovery process and intervene when it is abused by the parties, the Court is not normally in the business of dictating to parties the process that they should use when responding to discovery… Yet that is, in essence, what the parties are asking the Court to consider – whether document review should be done by humans or with the assistance of computers. Respondent fears an incomplete response to his discovery. If respondent believes that the ultimate discovery response is incomplete and can support that belief, he can file another motion to compel at that time.”

With regard to the respondent’s categorization of predictive coding as “unproven technology”, Judge Buch stated “We disagree. Although predictive coding is a relatively new technique, and a technique that has yet to be sanctioned (let alone mentioned) by this Court in a published Opinion, the understanding of e-discovery and electronic media has advanced significantly in the last few years, thus making predictive coding more acceptable in the technology industry than it may have previously been. In fact, we understand that the technology industry now considers predictive coding to be widely accepted for limiting e-discovery to relevant documents and effecting discovery of ESI without an undue burden.”

As a result, Judge Buch ruled that “[p]etitioners may use predictive coding in responding to respondent's discovery request. If, after reviewing the results, respondent believes that the response to the discovery request is incomplete, he may file a motion to compel at that time.”

So, what do you think?  Should predictive coding have been allowed in this case?  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.

Good Processing Requires a Sound Process – Best of eDiscovery Daily

Home at last!  Today, we are recovering from our trip, after arriving back home one day late and without our luggage.  Satan, thy name is Lufthansa!  Anyway, for these past two weeks except for Jane Gennarelli’s Throwback Thursday series, we have been re-publishing some of our more popular and frequently referenced posts.  Today’s post is a topic that comes up often with our clients.  Enjoy!  New posts next week!

As we discussed Wednesday, working with electronic files in a review tool is NOT just simply a matter of loading the files and getting started.  Electronic files are diverse and can represent a whole collection of issues to address in order to process them for loading.  To address those issues effectively, processing requires a sound process.

eDiscovery providers like (shameless plus warning!) CloudNine Discovery process electronic files regularly to enable their clients to work with those files during review and production.  As a result, we are aware of some of the information that must be provided by the client to ensure that the resulting processed data meets their needs and have created an EDD processing spec sheet to gather that information before processing.  Examples of information we collect from our clients:

  • Do you need de-duplication?  If so, should it performed at the case or the custodian level?
  • Should Outlook emails be extracted in MSG or HTM format?
  • What time zone should we use for email extraction?  Typically, it’s the local time zone of the client or Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).  If you don’t think that matters, consider this example.
  • Should we perform Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for image-only files that don’t have corresponding text?  If we don’t OCR those files, these could be responsive files that are missed during searching.
  • If any password-protected files are encountered, should we attempt to crack those passwords or log them as exception files?
  • Should the collection be culled based on a responsive date range?
  • Should the collection be culled based on key terms?

Those are some general examples for native processing.  If the client requests creation of image files (many still do, despite the well documented advantages of native files), there are a number of additional questions we ask regarding the image processing.  Some examples:

  • Generate as single-page TIFF, multi-page TIFF, text-searchable PDF or non text-searchable PDF?
  • Should color images be created when appropriate?
  • Should we generate placeholder images for unsupported or corrupt files that cannot be repaired?
  • Should we create images of Excel files?  If so, we proceed to ask a series of questions about formatting preferences, including orientation (portrait or landscape), scaling options (auto-size columns or fit to page), printing gridlines, printing hidden rows/columns/sheets, etc.
  • Should we endorse the images?  If so, how?

Those are just some examples.  Questions about print format options for Excel, Word and PowerPoint take up almost a full page by themselves – there are a lot of formatting options for those files and we identify default parameters that we typically use.  Don’t get me started.

We also ask questions about load file generation (if the data is not being loaded into our own review tool, OnDemand®), including what load file format is preferred and parameters associated with the desired load file format.

This isn’t a comprehensive list of questions we ask, just a sample to illustrate how many decisions must be made to effectively process electronic data.  Processing data is not just a matter of feeding native electronic files into the processing tool and generating results, it requires a sound process to ensure that the resulting output will meet the needs of the case.

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

P.S. – No hamsters were harmed in the making of this blog post.

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.

The Files are Already Electronic, How Hard Can They Be to Load? – Best of eDiscovery Daily

Come fly with me!  Today we are winding our way back home from Paris, by way of Frankfurt.  For the next two weeks except for Jane Gennarelli’s Throwback Thursday series, we will be re-publishing some of our more popular and frequently referenced posts.  Today’s post is a topic that relates to a question that I get asked often.  Enjoy!

Since hard copy discovery became electronic discovery, I’ve worked with a number of clients who expect that working with electronic files in a review tool is simply a matter of loading the files and getting started.  Unfortunately, it’s not that simple!

Back when most discovery was paper based, the usefulness of the documents was understandably limited.  Documents were paper and they all required conversion to image to be viewed electronically, optical character recognition (OCR) to capture their text (though not 100% accurately) and coding (i.e., data entry) to capture key data elements (e.g., author, recipient, subject, document date, document type, names mentioned, etc.).  It was a problem, but it was a consistent problem – all documents needed the same treatment to make them searchable and usable electronically.

Though electronic files are already electronic, that doesn’t mean that they’re ready for review as is.  They don’t just represent one problem, they can represent a whole collection of problems.  For example:

These are just a few examples of why working with electronic files for review isn’t necessarily straightforward.  Of course, when processed correctly, electronic files include considerable metadata that provides useful information about how and when the files were created and used, and by whom.  They’re way more useful than paper documents.  So, it’s still preferable to work with electronic files instead of hard copy files whenever they are available.  But, despite what you might think, that doesn’t make them ready to review as is.

So, what do you think?  Have you encountered difficulties or challenges when processing electronic files?  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.

Does Size Matter? – Best of eDiscovery Daily

Vive la France!  Today is our third full day in Paris and we’re planning to have lunch at the Eiffel Tower, which is really large.  For the next two weeks except for Jane Gennarelli’s Throwback Thursday series, we will be re-publishing some of our more popular and frequently referenced posts.  Today’s post is one that has generated a lot of discussion over the years.  Enjoy!

I admit it, with a title like “Does Size Matter?”, I’m looking for a few extra page views.  😉

I frequently get asked how big does an ESI collection need to be to benefit from eDiscovery technology.  In a recent case with one of my clients, the client had a fairly small collection – only about 4 GB.  But, when a judge ruled that they had to start conducting depositions in a week, they needed to review that data in a weekend.  Without culling the data and using OnDemand® to manage the linear review, they would not have been able to make that deadline.  So, they clearly benefited from the use of eDiscovery technology in that case.

But, if you’re not facing a tight deadline, how large does your collection need to be for the use of eDiscovery technology to provide benefits?

I recently conducted a webinar regarding the benefits of First Pass Review – aka Early Case Assessment (ECA), or a more accurate term (as George Socha points out regularly), Early Data Assessment.  One of the topics discussed in that webinar was the cost of review for each gigabyte (GB).  Extrapolated from an analysis conducted by Anne Kershaw a few years ago (and published in the Gartner report E-Discovery: Project Planning and Budgeting 2008-2011), here is a breakdown:

Estimated Cost to Review All Documents in a GB:

  • Pages per GB:                   75,000
  • Pages per Document:        4
  • Documents Per GB:           18,750
  • Review Rate:                    50 documents per hour
  • Total Review Hours:          375
  • Reviewer Billing Rate:       $50 per hour

Total Cost to Review Each GB:      $18,750

Notes: The number of pages per GB can vary widely.  Page per GB estimates tend to range from 50,000 to 100,000 pages per GB, so 75,000 pages (18,750 documents) seems an appropriate average.  50 documents reviewed per hour is considered to be a fast review rate and $50 per hour is considered to be a bargain price.  eDiscovery Daily provided an earlier estimate of $16,650 per GB based on assumptions of 20,000 documents per GB and 60 documents reviewed per hour – the assumptions may change somewhat, but, either way, the cost for attorney review of each GB could be expected to range from at least $16,000 to $18,000, possibly more.

Advanced culling and searching capabilities of tools like OnDemand can enable you to cull out 70-80% of most collections as clearly non-responsive without having to conduct attorney review on those files.  If you have merely a 2 GB collection and assume the lowest review cost above of $16,000 per GB, the use of an ECA tool to cull out 70% of the collection can save $22,400 in attorney review costs.  Is that worth it?

So, what do you think?  Do you use eDiscovery technology for only the really large cases or ALL 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.