Close
Enter your
text here

Searching

Reporting from the EDRM Annual Meeting and a Data Set Update – eDiscovery Trends

The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) Project was created in May 2005 by George Socha of Socha Consulting LLC and Tom Gelbmann of Gelbmann & Associates to address the lack of standards and guidelines in the electronic discovery market.  Now, beginning its ninth year of operation with its annual meeting in St. Paul, MN, EDRM is accomplishing more than ever to address those needs.  Here are some highlights from the meeting, and an update regarding the (suddenly heavily talked about) EDRM Data Set project.

Annual Meeting

Twice a year, in May and October, eDiscovery professionals who are EDRM members meet to continue the process of working together on various standards projects.  This will be my eighth year participating in EDRM at some level and, oddly enough, I’m assisting with PR and promotion (how am I doing so far?).  eDiscovery Daily has referenced EDRM and its phases many times in the 2 1/2 years plus history of the blog – this is our 144th post that relates to EDRM!

Some notable observations about today’s meeting:

  • New Participants: More than half the attendees at this year’s annual meeting are attending for the first time.  EDRM is not just a core group of “die-hards”, it continues to find appeal with eDiscovery professionals throughout the industry.
  • Agile Approach: EDRM has adopted an Agile approach to shorten the time to complete and publish deliverables, a change in philosophy that facilitated several notable accomplishments from working groups over the past year including the Model Code of Conduct (MCoC), Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM), Search and Jobs (among others).  More on that tomorrow.
  • Educational Alliances: For the first time, EDRM has formed some interesting and unique educational alliances.  In April, EDRM teamed with the University of Florida Levin College of Law to present a day and a half conference entitled E-Discovery for the Small and Medium Case.  And, this June, EDRM will team with Bryan University to provide an in-depth, four-week E-Discovery Software & Applied Skills Summer Immersion Program for Law School Students.
  • New Working Group: A new working group to be lead by Eric Mandel of Zelle Hoffman was formed to address standards for working with native files in the different EDRM phases.

Tomorrow, we’ll discuss the highlights for most of the individual working groups.  Given the recent amount of discussion about the EDRM Data Set group, we’ll start with that one today!

Data Set

The EDRM Enron Data Set has been around for several years and has been a valuable resource for eDiscovery software demonstration and testing (we covered it here back in January 2011).  The data in the EDRM Enron PST Data Set files is sourced from the FERC Enron Investigation release made available by Lockheed Martin Corporation.  It was reconstituted as PST files with attachments for the EDRM Data Set Project.  So, in essence EDRM took already public domain available data and made the data much more usable.  Initially, the data was made available for download on the EDRM site, then subsequently moved to Amazon Web Services (AWS).

In the past several days, there has been much discussion about the personally-identifiable information (“PII”) available within the FERC (and consequently the EDRM Data Set), including social security numbers, credit card numbers, dates of birth, home addresses and phone numbers.  Consequently, the EDRM Data Set has been taken down from the AWS site.

The Data Set team led by Michael Lappin of Nuix and Eric Robi of Elluma Discovery has been working on a process (using predictive coding technology) to identify and remove the PII data from the EDRM Data Set.  Discussions about this process began months ago, prior to the recent discussions about the PII data contained within the set.  The team has completed this iterative process for V1 of the data set (which contains 1,317,158 items), identifying and removing 10,568 items with PII, HIPAA and other sensitive information.  This version of the data set will be made available within the EDRM community shortly for peer review testing.  The data set team will then repeat the process for the larger V2 version of the data set (2,287,984 items).  A timetable for republishing both sets should be available soon and the efforts of the Data Set team on this project should pay dividends in developing and standardizing processes for identifying and eliminating sensitive data that eDiscovery professionals can use in their own data sets.

The team has also implemented a Forensic Files Testing Project site where users can upload their own “modern”, non-copyrighted file samples that are typically encountered during electronic discovery processing to provide a more diverse set of data than is currently available within the Enron data set.

So, what do you think?  How has EDRM impacted how you manage 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 Rejects Defendants’ Claim of Undue Burden in ERISA Case – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In the case we covered on Monday, the court ruled for the defendant in their effort to avoid what they felt to be undue burden and expense in preserving data.  Here is another case where the defendant made an undue burden claim, but with a different result.

In the case In re Coventry Healthcare, Inc.: ERISA Litigation, No. AW 09-2661 (D. Md. Mar. 21, 2013), Maryland Magistrate Judge Jillyn K. Schulze rejected the defendants’ claim of undue burden where they failed to suggest alternatives to using the plaintiffs’ search terms and where they could enter a clawback order to eliminate the cost of reviewing the data for responsiveness and privilege.

In this Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action, a discovery dispute arose when the defendants filed a motion to curtail the relevant time frame for discovery due in part to the burden it would impose on them. The plaintiffs sought discovery from February 9, 2007 to October 22, 2008; the defendants asked the court to limit it to January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2008.

The defendants relied on Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) to establish that the burden of producing the data outweighed any benefit it offered the plaintiffs. Judge Schulze noted that the “party seeking to lessen the burden of responding to electronic records discovery ‘bears the burden of particularly demonstrating that burden and of providing suggested alternatives that reasonably accommodate the requesting party’s legitimate discovery needs’”.

Here, the defendants claimed they tested the plaintiffs’ proposed search terms on the custodians’ data and hit 200,000 documents. They claimed it would cost roughly $388,000 to process, host, and review the data for responsiveness and privilege. However, the defendants did not suggest “any alternative measures that could reasonably accommodate Plaintiffs’ discovery needs other than negotiating more refined search terms.”

In response, the plaintiffs argued they had tried to collaborate with the defendants to “develop appropriate searches for ESI by limiting the searches to certain designated custodians” and by shortening the discovery period by three months.

Judge Schulze found that the narrowing of the discovery period would reduce the costs, and that “a clawback order can protect Defendants against a claim of waiver, such that Defendants need no longer bear the cost of reviewing the ESI for responsiveness and privilege.” Finally, “[t]o further reduce any undue burden, Plaintiffs may need to refine their proposed search terms to narrow the pool of potentially relevant documents.”  With these options available, Judge Schulze found that the defendants had not met their burden to show that producing the evidence would be unduly burdensome.

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

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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 Forces Defendant to Come to Terms with Plaintiff Search Request – eDiscovery Case Law

In Robert Bosch LLC v. Snap-On, Inc., No. 12-11503, (D. ED Mich. Mar. 14, 2013), Michigan District Judge Robert H. Cleland granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel with regard to specific search terms requested for the defendant to perform.  The judge denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions to award attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in bringing its motion to compel.

The plaintiff filed a motion to compel the defendant to perform the following two search terms for discovery purposes (where “!” is a wildcard character):

  • (diagnostic! and test!), and
  • ([ECU or “electronic control unit”] and diagnostic!)

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A), a party must produce relevant documents and electronically stored information. While the defendant did not dispute that the search terms are relevant, they argued that the terms were so broad and commonly used in day-to-day business that searching the terms would be burdensome and result in overproduction by including large portions of their business unrelated to the case.  The defendant’s arguments were twofold:

  1. Overbroad: The defendant claimed that “the word ‘diagnostics’ is included in at least one custodian’s email signature and that ‘the vast majority of documents in Snapon’s Diagnostic Group include the word `Diagnostics,’ thereby effectively reducing the disputed terms to `test!’ and `(ECU or “electronic control unit”).’”
  2. More Appropriate Alternatives: The defendant contended that the term “diagnostic” would be sufficiently searched by already agreed upon searches which pair “diagnostic” with “more narrowly tailored conjunctive terms, such as ‘plug’ and ‘database,’ that are not as common as ‘test’ and ‘ECU.’” The defendant also claimed that the search terms were unnecessary because they agreed to run searches of all of the variations of the names of the accused products.

Judge Cleland stated that he found the defendant’s arguments “unpersuasive”, stating that “[e]ven though Snap-on has agreed to search all variations of the names of the accused products, the disputed search terms may uncover relevant documents that do not contain the accused products’ names. The court is not convinced that the terms “test” and “ECU” are significantly more common than “plug” and “database” such that searching (diagnostic! and plug) is reasonable but searching (diagnostic! and test!) is burdensome.”

Judge Cleland also suggested techniques “to limit any overproduction”, including not producing emails in which the term “diagnostic” was found only in the signature portion and using proximity connectors (agreed-upon with the plaintiff) in the searches.  He also recommended that the defendant “should communicate the proposed techniques to Bosch prior to running the searches” and that the “parties should discuss and agree upon the details of the techniques so that the searches are conducted without generating further motion practice on the matter.”

The judge, however, denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the form of reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and expenses for filing the motion to compel, indicating that the defendant “has provided logical reasons for objecting to the disputed search terms”.

It’s interesting that the defendant didn’t provide document retrieval counts and try to argue on the basis of proportionality.  Perhaps providing the counts would reveal too much strategy?  Regardless, it seems that the wildcard search for “test” could be argued as potentially overbroad – there are 60 words in the English language that begin with “test”.  It looks like somebody is getting “wild” with wildcards!

So, what do you think?  Could the defendant have made a more effective argument, based on proportionality?  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.

Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendant’s Use of Keyword Search before Predictive Coding Rejected – eDiscovery Case Law

Is it possible to produce documents for discovery too early?  At least one plaintiff’s group says yes.

In the case In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2391), thhttps://cloudnine.com/ediscoverydaily/ralph-losey-of-jackson-lewis-llp-ediscovery-trends-part-1/e Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in a Multi District Litigation objected to the defendant’s use of keyword searching prior to performing predictive coding and requested that the defendant go back to its original set of 19.5 million documents and repeat the predictive coding without performing keyword searching.  Indiana District Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. denied the request.

Defendant’s Discovery Efforts to Date

In this dispute over hip implant products, the defendant began producing documents in cases that were eventually centralized, despite (sometimes forceful) requests by plaintiffs’ counsel not to begin document production until the decision whether to centralize was made.  The defendant used keyword culling to reduce the universe of documents and attachments from 19.5 million documents to 3.9 million documents, and removing duplicates left 2.5 million documents and attachments. The defendant performed statistical sampling tests, with a 99 percent confidence rate, to determine that between .55% and 1.33% of the unselected documents would be responsive and (with the same confidence level) that between 1.37% and 2.47% of the original 19.5 million documents were responsive.  The defendant’s approach actually retrieved 16% of the original 19.5 million.  The defendant then performed predictive coding to identify responsive documents to be produced from the set of 2.5 million documents.

According to the order, the defendant’s eDiscovery costs “are about $1.07 million and will total between $2 million and $3.25 million.” {emphasis added}  The defendant “invited the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee to suggest additional search terms and offered to produce the rest of the non-privileged documents from the post-keyword 2.5 million”, but they declined, “believing they are too little to assure proper document production”.

Plaintiffs’ Objections

The plaintiffs’ Steering Committee objected, claiming that the defendant’s use of keyword searching “has tainted the process”, pointing to an article which “mentioned unidentified ‘literature stating that linear review would generate a responsive rate of 60 percent and key word searches only 20 percent, and [the defendants in the case being discussed] proposed that predictive coding at a 75 percent responsive rate would be sufficient.’” {emphasis added}  They requested that the defendant “go back to its 19.5 million documents and employ predictive coding, with plaintiffs and defendants jointly entering the ‘find more like this’ commands.”  In response to the defendant’s objections that virtually starting over would cost additional millions, the Steering Committee blamed the defendant for spending millions on document production despite being warned not to begin until the cases had been centralized.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that “[w]hat Biomet has done complies fully with the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b) and 34(b)(2)”, Judge Miller noted that “the Steering Committee’s request that Biomet go back to Square One…and institute predictive coding at that earlier stage sits uneasily with the proportionality standard in Rule 26(b)(2)(C).”  Continuing, Judge Miller stated:

“Even in light of the needs of the hundreds of plaintiffs in this case, the very large amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake, and the importance of this discovery in resolving the issues, I can’t find that the likely benefits of the discovery proposed by the Steering Committee equals or outweighs its additional burden on, and additional expense to, Biomet.”

Judge Miller also rejected the Steering Committee’s position that the defendant can’t rely on proportionality arguments because they proceeded with document production while the centralization decision was pending: “The Steering Committee hasn’t argued (and I assume it can’t argue) that Biomet had no disclosure or document identification obligation in any of the cases that were awaiting a ruling on (or even the filing of) the centralization petition.”  As a result, he ruled that the Steering Committee would have to bear the expense for “production of documents that can be identified only through re-commenced processing, predictive coding, review, and production”.

So, what do you think?  Was the judge correct to accept the defendant’s multimodal approach to discovery?  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.

Appeals Court Upholds Decision Not to Recuse Judge Peck in Da Silva Moore – eDiscovery Case Law

As reported by IT-Lex, the Second Circuit of the US Court of Appeals rejected the Plaintiff’s request for a writ of mandamus recusing Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck from Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe SA.

The entire opinion is stated as follows:

“Petitioners, through counsel, petition this Court for a writ of mandamus compelling the recusal of Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the mandamus petition is DENIED because Petitioners have not ‘clearly and indisputably demonstrate[d] that [Magistrate Judge Peck] abused [his] discretion’ in denying their district court recusal motion, In re Basciano, 542 F. 3d 950, 956 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., 861 F.2d 1307, 1312-13 (2d Cir. 1988)), or that the district court erred in overruling their objection to that decision.”

Now, the plaintiffs have been denied in their recusal efforts in three courts.

Since it has been a while, let’s recap the case for those who may have not been following it and may be new to the blog.

Last year, back in February, Judge Peck issued an opinion making this case likely the first case to accept the use of computer-assisted review of electronically stored information (“ESI”) for this case.  However, on March 13, District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the plaintiffs’ request to submit additional briefing on their February 22 objections to the ruling.  In that briefing (filed on March 26), the plaintiffs claimed that the protocol approved for predictive coding “risks failing to capture a staggering 65% of the relevant documents in this case” and questioned Judge Peck’s relationship with defense counsel and with the selected vendor for the case, Recommind.

Then, on April 5, Judge Peck issued an order in response to Plaintiffs’ letter requesting his recusal, directing plaintiffs to indicate whether they would file a formal motion for recusal or ask the Court to consider the letter as the motion.  On April 13, (Friday the 13th, that is), the plaintiffs did just that, by formally requesting the recusal of Judge Peck (the defendants issued a response in opposition on April 30).  But, on April 25, Judge Carter issued an opinion and order in the case, upholding Judge Peck’s opinion approving computer-assisted review.

Not done, the plaintiffs filed an objection on May 9 to Judge Peck’s rejection of their request to stay discovery pending the resolution of outstanding motions and objections (including the recusal motion, which has yet to be ruled on.  Then, on May 14, Judge Peck issued a stay, stopping defendant MSLGroup’s production of electronically stored information.  On June 15, in a 56 page opinion and order, Judge Peck denied the plaintiffs’ motion for recusal.  Judge Carter ruled on the plaintiff’s recusal request on November 7, denying the request and stating that “Judge Peck’s decision accepting computer-assisted review … was not influenced by bias, nor did it create any appearance of bias”.

So, what do you think?  Will this finally end the recusal question 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.

Four More Tips to Quash the Cost of eDiscovery – eDiscovery Best Practices

Thursday, we covered the first four tips from Craig Ball’s informative post on his blog (Ball in your Court) entitled Eight Tips to Quash the Cost of E-Discovery with tips on saving eDiscovery costs.  Today, we’ll discuss the last four tips.

5. Test your Methods and Know your ESI: Craig says that “Staggering sums are spent in e-discovery to collect and review data that would never have been collected if only someone had run a small scale test before deploying an enterprise search”.  Knowing your ESI will, as Craig notes, “narrow the scope of collection and review with consequent cost savings”.  In one of the posts on our very first day of the blog, I relayed an actual example from a client regarding a search that included a wildcard of “min*” to retrieve variations like “mine”, “mines” and “mining”.  Because there are 269 words in the English language that begin with “min”, that overly broad search retrieved over 300,000 files with hits in an enterprise-wide search.  Unfortunately, the client had already agreed to the search term before finding that out, which resulted in considerable negotiation (and embarrassment) to get the other side to agree to modify the term.  That’s why it’s always a good idea to test your searches before the meet and confer.  The better you know your ESI, the more you save.

6. Use Good Tools: Craig provides another great analogy in observing that “If you needed to dig a big hole, you wouldn’t use a teaspoon, nor would you hire a hundred people with teaspoons.  You’d use the right power tool and a skilled operator.”  Collection and review tools must fit your requirements and workflow, so, guess what?  You need to understand those requirements and your workflow to pick the right tool.  If you’re putting together a wooden table, you don’t have to learn how to operate a blowtorch if all you need is a hammer and some nails, or a screwdriver and some screws for the job.  The better that the tools fit your workflow, the more you save.

7. Communicate and Cooperate: Craig says that “Much of the waste in e-discovery grows out of apprehension and uncertainty.  Litigants often over-collect and over-review, preferring to spend more than necessary instead of giving the transparency needed to secure a crucial concession on scope or methodology”.  A big part of communication and cooperation, at least in Federal cases, is the Rule 26(f) conference (which is also known as the “meet and confer”, here are two posts on the subject).  The more straightforward you make discovery through communication and cooperation, the more you save.

8. Price is What the Seller Accepts: Craig notes that there is much “pliant pricing” for eDiscovery tools and services and relayed an example where a vendor initially quoted $43.5 million to complete a large expedited project, only to drop that quote all the way down to $3.5 million after some haggling.  Yes, it’s important to shop around.  It’s also important to be able to know the costs going in, through predictable pricing.  If you have 10 gigabytes or 1 terabyte of data, providers should be able to tell you exactly what it will cost to collect, process, load and host that data.  And, it’s always good if the provider will let you try their tools for free, on your actual data, so you know whether those tools are worth the price.  The more predictable price and value of the tools and services are, the more you save.

So, what do you think?  What are you doing to keep eDiscovery costs down?  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.

Eight Tips to Quash the Cost of eDiscovery – eDiscovery Best Practices

By now, Craig Ball needs no introduction our readers as he has been a thought leader interview participant for the past three years.  Two years ago, we published his interview in a single post, his interview last year was split into a two part series and this year’s interview was split into a three part series.  Perhaps next year, I will be lucky enough to interview him for an hour and we can simply have a five-part “Ball Week” (like the Discovery Channel has “Shark Week”).  Hmmm…

Regardless, I’m a regular reader of his blog, Ball in your Court, as well, and, last week, he published a very informative post entitled Eight Tips to Quash the Cost of E-Discovery with tips on saving eDiscovery costs.  I thought we would cover those tips here, with some commentary:

  1. Eliminate Waste: Craig notes that “irrational fears [that] flow from lack of familiarity with systems, tools and techniques that achieve better outcomes at lower cost” results in waste.  Over-preservation and over-collection of ESI, conversion of ESI, failing to deduplicate and reviewing unnecessary files all drive the cost up.  Last September, we ran a post regarding quality control and making sure the numbers add up when you subtract filtered, NIST/system, exception, duplicate and culled (during searching) files from the collected total.  In that somewhat hypothetical example based on Enron data sets, after removing those files, only 17% of the collected files were actually reviewed (which, in many cases, would still be too high a percentage).  The less number of files that require attorney “eyes on”, the more you save.
  2. Reduce Redundancy and Fragmentation: While, according to the Compliance, Governance and Oversight Council (CGOC), information volume in most organizations doubles every 18-24 months, Craig points out that “human beings don’t create that much more unique information; they mostly make more copies of the same information and break it into smaller pieces.”  Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results and insane review is reviewing the same documents over and over and (potentially) getting different results, which is not only inefficient, but could lead to inconsistencies and even inadvertent disclosures.  Most collections not only contain exact duplicates in the exact format (which can identified through hash-based deduplication), but also “near” duplicates that include the same content in different file formats (and at different sizes) or portions of the content in eMail threads.  The less duplicative content that requires review, the more you save.
  3. Don’t Convert ESI: In addition to noting the pitfalls of converting ESI to page-like image formats like TIFF, Craig also wrote a post about it, entitled Are They Trying to Screw Me? (discussed in this blog here).  ‘Nuff said.  The less ESI you convert, the more you save.
  4. Review Rationally: Craig discussed a couple of irrational approaches to review, including reviewing attachments without hits when the eMail has been determined to be non-responsive and the tendency to “treat information in any form from any source as requiring privilege review when even a dollop of thought would make clear that not all forms or sources of ESI are created equal when it comes to their potential to hold privileged content”.  For the latter, he advocates using technology to “isolate privileged content” as well as clawback agreements and Federal Rule of Evidence 502 for protection against inadvertent disclosure.  It’s also important to be able to adjust during the review process if certain groups of documents are identified as needing to be excluded or handled differently, such as the “All Rights Reserved” documents that I previously referenced in the “oil” AND “rights” search example.  The more intelligent the review process, the more you save.

There is too much to say about these eight tips to limit to one blog post, so on Monday (after the Good Friday holiday) we’ll cover tips 5 through 8.  The waiting is the hardest part.

So, what do you think?  What are you doing to keep eDiscovery costs down?  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.

Fulbright’s Litigation Trends Survey Shows Increased Litigation, Mobile Device Collection – eDiscovery Trends

According to Fulbright’s 9th Annual Litigation Trends Survey released last month, companies in the United States and United Kingdom continue to deal with, and spend more on litigation.  From an eDiscovery standpoint, the survey showed an increase in requirements to preserve and collect data from employee mobile devices, a high reliance on self-preservation to fulfill preservation obligations and a decent percentage of organizations using technology assisted review.

Here are some interesting statistics from the report:

PARTICIPANTS

Here is a breakdown of the participants in the survey.

  • There were 392 total participants from the US and UK, 96% of which were either General Counsel (82%) or Head of Litigation (14%).
  • About half (49%) of the companies surveyed, were billion dollar companies with $1 billion or more in gross revenue.  36% of the total companies have revenues of $10 billion or more.

LITIGATION TRENDS

The report showed increases in both the number of cases being encountered by organizations, as well as the total expenditures for litigation.

Increasing Litigation Cases

  • This year, 92% of respondents anticipate either the same amount or more litigation, up from 89% last year.  26% of respondents expect litigation to increase, while 66% expect litigation to stay the same.  Among the larger companies, 33% of respondents expect more disputes, and 94% expect either the same number or an increase.
  • The number of respondents reporting that they had received a lawsuit rose this year to 86% estimating at least one matter, compared with 73% last year. Those estimating at least 21 lawsuits or more rose to 33% from 22% last year.
  • Companies facing at least one $20 million lawsuit rose to 31% this year, from 23% the previous year.

Increasing Litigation Costs

  • The percentage of companies spending $1 million or more on litigation has increased for the third year in a row to 54%, up from 51% in 2011 and 46% in 2010, primarily due to a sharp rise in $1 million+ cases in the UK (rising from 38% in 2010 up to 53% in 2012).
  • In the US, 53% of organizations spend $1 million or more on litigation and 17% spend $10 million or more.
  • 33% of larger companies spent $10 million on litigation, way up from 19% the year before (and 22% in 2010).

EDISCOVERY TRENDS

The report showed an increase in requirements to preserve and collect data from employee mobile devices, a high reliance on self-preservation to fulfill preservation obligations and a decent percentage of organizations using technology assisted review.

Mobile Device Preservation and Collection

  • 41% of companies had to preserve and/or collect data from an employee mobile device because of litigation or an investigation in 2012, up from 32% in 2011.
  • Similar increases were reported by respondents from larger companies (38% in 2011, up to 54% in 2012) and midsized companies (26% in 2011, up to 40% in 2012).  Only respondents from smaller companies reported a drop (from 26% to 14%).

Self-Preservation

  • 69% of companies rely on individuals preserving their own data (i.e., self-preservation) in any of their disputes or investigations.  Larger and mid-sized companies are more likely to utilize self-preservation (73% and 72% respectively) than smaller companies (52%).
  • 41% of companies use self-preservation in all of their matters, and 73% use it for half or more of all matters.
  • When not relying on self-preservation, 72% of respondents say they depend on the IT function to collect all data sources of pertinent custodians.
  • Reasons that respondents gave for not relying on self-preservation included: More cost effective and efficient not to rely on custodian 29%; Lack of compliance by custodians 24%; High profile matter 23%; High monetary or other exposure 22%; Need to conduct forensics 20%; Some or all custodians may have an incentive to improperly delete potentially relevant information; 18%; Case law does not support self-preservation 14% and High profile custodian 11%.

Technology Assisted Review

  • 35% of all respondents are using technology assisted review for at least some of their matters.  U.S. companies are more likely to employ technology-assisted review than their U.K. counterparts (40% versus 23%).
  • 43% of larger companies surveyed use technology assisted review, compared with 32% of mid-sized companies and 23% of the smaller companies.
  • Of those companies utilizing technology assisted review, 21% use it in all of their matters and 51% use it for half or more of their matters.

There are plenty more interesting stats and trends in the report, which is free(!).  To download your own copy of the report, click here.

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

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

eDiscovery Daily Is Thirty! (Months Old, That Is)

Thirty months ago yesterday, eDiscovery Daily was launched.  It’s hard to believe that it has been 2 1/2 years since our first three posts that debuted on our first day.  635 posts later, a lot has happened in the industry that we’ve covered.  And, yes we’re still crazy after all these years for committing to a daily post each business day, but we still haven’t missed a business day yet.  Twice a year, we like to take a look back at some of the important stories and topics during that time.  So, here are just a few of the posts over the last six months you may have missed.  Enjoy!

In addition, Jane Gennarelli has been publishing an excellent series to introduce new eDiscovery professionals to the litigation process and litigation terminology.  Here is the latest post, which includes links to the previous twenty one posts.

Thanks for noticing us!  We’ve nearly quadrupled our readership since the first six month period and almost septupled (that’s grown 7 times in size!) our subscriber base since those first six months!  We appreciate the interest you’ve shown in the topics and will do our best to continue to provide interesting and useful eDiscovery news and analysis.  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.

Outlook Emails Can Take Many Forms – eDiscovery Best Practices

Most discovery requests include a request for emails of parties involved in the case.  Email data is often the best resource for establishing a timeline of communications in the case and Microsoft® Outlook is the most common email program used in business today.  Outlook emails can be stored in several different forms, so it’s important to be able to account for each file format when collecting emails that may be responsive to the discovery request.

There are several different file types that contain Outlook emails, including:

EDB (Exchange Database): The server files for Microsoft Exchange, which is the server environment which manages Outlook emails in an organization.  In the EDB file, a user account is created for each person authorized at the company to use email (usually, but not always, employees). The EDB file stores all of the information related to email messages, calendar appointments, tasks, and contacts for all authorized email users at the company.  EDB files are the server-side collection of Outlook emails for an organization that uses Exchange, so they are a primary source of responsive emails for those organizations.  Not all organizations that use Outlook use Exchange, but larger organizations almost always do.

OST (Outlook Offline Storage Table): Outlook can be configured to keep a local copy of a user’s items on their computer in an Outlook data file that is named an offline Outlook Data File (OST). This allows the user to work offline when a connection to the Exchange computer may not be possible or wanted. The OST file is synchronized with the Exchange computer when a connection is available.  If the synchronization is not current for a particular user, their OST file could contain emails that are not on the EDB server file, so OST files may also need to be searched for responsive emails.

PST (Outlook Personal Storage Table): A PST file is another Outlook data file that stores a user’s messages and other items on their computer. It’s the most common file format for home users or small organizations that don’t use Exchange, but instead use an ISP to connect to the Internet (typically through POP3 and IMAP).  In addition, Exchange users may move or archive messages to a PST file (either manually or via auto-archiving) to move them out of the primary mailbox, typically to keep their mailbox size manageable.  PST files often contain emails not found in either the EDB or OST files (especially when Exchange is not used), so it’s important to search them for responsive emails as well.

MSG (Outlook MSG File): MSG is a file extension for a mail message file format used by Microsoft Outlook and Exchange.  Each MSG file is a self-contained unit for the message “family” (email and its attachments) and individual MSG files can be saved simply by dragging messages out of Outlook to a folder on the computer (which could then be stored on portable media, such as CDs or flash drives).  As these individual emails may no longer be contained in the other Outlook file types, it’s important to determine where they are located and search them for responsiveness.  MSG is also the most common format for native production of individual responsive Outlook emails.

Other Outlook file types that might contain responsive information are EML (Electronic Mail), which is the Outlook Express email format and PAB (Personal Address Book), which, as the name implies, stores the user’s contact information.

Of course, Outlook emails are not just stored within EDB files on the server or these other file types on the local workstation or portable media; they can also be stored within an email archiving system or synchronized to phones and other portable devices.  Regardless, it’s important to account for the different file types when collecting potentially responsive Outlook emails for discovery.

So, what do you think?  Are you searching all of these file types for responsive Outlook emails?  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.