Close
Enter your
text here

Searching

eDiscovery Trends: “Assisted” is the Key Word for Technology Assisted Review
 

As noted in our blog post entitled 2012 Predictions – By The Numbers, almost all of the sets of eDiscovery predictions we reviewed (9 out of 10) predicted a greater emphasis on Technology Assisted Review (TAR) in the coming year.  It was one of our predictions, as well.  And, during all three days at LegalTech New York (LTNY) a couple of weeks ago, sessions were conducted that addressed technology assisted review concepts and best practices.

While some equate technology assisted review with predictive coding, other technology approaches such as conceptual clustering are also increasing in popularity.  They qualify as TAR approaches, as well.  However, for purposes of this blog post, we will focus on predictive coding.

Over a year ago, I attended a Virtual LegalTech session entitled Frontiers of E-Discovery: What Lawyers Need to Know About “Predictive Coding” and wrote a blog post from that entitled What the Heck is “Predictive Coding”?  The speakers for the session were Jason R. Baron, Maura Grossman and Bennett Borden (Jason and Bennett are previous thought leader interviewees on this blog).  The panel gave the best descriptive definition that I’ve seen yet for predictive coding, as follows:

“The use of machine learning technologies to categorize an entire collection of documents as responsive or non-responsive, based on human review of only a subset of the document collection. These technologies typically rank the documents from most to least likely to be responsive to a specific information request. This ranking can then be used to “cut” or partition the documents into one or more categories, such as potentially responsive or not, in need of further review or not, etc.”

It’s very cool technology and capable of efficient and accurate review of the document collection, saving costs without sacrificing quality of review (in some cases, it yields even better results than traditional manual review).  However, there is one key phrase in the definition above that can make or break the success of the predictive coding process: “based on human review of only a subset of the document collection”. 

Key to the success of any review effort, whether linear or technology assisted, is knowledge of the subject matter.  For linear review, knowledge of the subject matter usually results in preparation of high quality review instructions that (assuming the reviewers competently follow those instructions) result in a high quality review.  In the case of predictive coding, use of subject matter experts (SMEs) to review a core subset of documents (typically known as a “seed set”) and make determinations regarding that subset is what enables the technology in predictive coding to “predict” the responsiveness and importance of the remaining documents in the collection.  The more knowledgeable the SMEs are in creating the “seed set”, the more accurate the “predictions” will be.

And, as is the case with other processes such as document searching, sampling the results (by determining the appropriate sample size of responsive and non-responsive items, randomly selecting those samples and reviewing both groups – responsive and non-responsive – to test the results) will enable you to determine how effective the process was in predictively coding the document set.  If sampling shows that the process yielded inadequate results, take what you’ve learned from the sample set review and apply it to create a more accurate “seed set” for re-categorizing the document collection.  Sampling will enable you to defend the accuracy of the predictive coding process, while saving considerable review costs.

So, what do you think?  Have you utilized predictive coding in any of your reviews?  How did it work for 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 Case Law: Court Rules Exact Search Terms Are Limited
 

In Custom Hardware Eng’g & Consulting v. Dowell, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146, 7-8 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 3, 2012), the plaintiff and defendant could not agree on search terms to be used for discovery on defendant’s forensically imaged computers.  The court directed each party to submit a proposed list of search terms and indicated that each party would be permitted to file objections to the opposing party's proposed list.  After reviewing the proposals, and the defendant’s objections to the plaintiff’s proposed list, the court ruled that the defendant’s proposed list was “problematic and inappropriate” and that their objections to the plaintiff’s proposed terms were “without merit” and ruled for use of the plaintiff’s search terms in discovery.

Plaintiff alleged the defendants formed a competing company by “illegally accessing, copying, and using Plaintiff's computer software and data programming source code systems” and sued defendants for copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract and other claims.  The court ordered discovery of ESI on defendants' computers through use of a forensic process to recover and then search the ESI.  In July 2011, the plaintiffs provided a request for production to defendants that requested “any and all documents which contain, describe, and/or relate in any manner to any of the words, phrases and acronyms, or derivatives thereof, contained in the list [provided], irrespective of whether exact capitalization, alternative spelling, or any other grammatical standard was used.”  The defendants submitted their own proposed list, which “excludes irrelevant information by requiring precise matches between search terms and ESI”.

Referencing Victor Stanley (previous blog posts regarding that case here, here, here and here), Missouri District Court Judge Richard Webber noted in his ruling that “While keyword searches have long been recognized as appropriate and helpful for ESI search and retrieval, there are well-known limitations and risks associated with them.”  Quoting from The Sedona Conference Best Practices Commentary on the Use of Search & Information Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery, the court noted that keyword searches “capture many documents irrelevant to the user's query…but at the same time exclude common or inadvertently misspelled instances” of the search terms.

The defendant issued three objections to the plaintiff’s terms, which the court addressed as follows:

  • Plaintiffs’ Terms would Include an Unreasonable Number of Irrelevant Results: Assuming that the argument was based on a contention by the defendants that the discovery would be overly burdensome, the court noted that the “burden or expense of conducting such a search must be low, and Defendants have presented the Court with no evidence that suggests otherwise.”
  • Plaintiffs' Terms would Produce Privileged Results: The Court noted that a producing party can create a privilege log to exclude documents that would otherwise fit the search term results.
  • Some of Plaintiffs' terms will Encompass Only Irrelevant Information: Noting that the defendants' “objection is a conclusory statement, stated without any argumentation or other support”, the Court found that a search of these terms may produce "matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense”.

The Court also found that the defendants' proposed list would be “problematic and inappropriate” and “would fail to produce discoverable ESI simply because of an inexact match in capitalization or phrasing between a search term and the ESI” and rejected that list, ordering use of the plaintiff’s list for searching.

So, what do you think?  Was that the right call, or was the plaintiff’s request overbroad?  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 Best Practices: Preparing Your 30(b)(6) Witnesses
 

When it comes to questions and potential issues that the receiving party may have about the discovery process of the producing party, one of the most common and direct methods for conducting “discovery about the discovery” is a deposition under Federal Rule 30(b)(6). This rule enables a party to serve a deposition notice on the entity involved in the litigation rather than an individual. The notice identifies the topics to be covered in the deposition, and the entity being deposed must designate one or more people qualified to answer questions on the identified topics.

While those designated to testify may not necessarily have day-to-day responsibility related to the identified topics, they must be educated enough in those issues to sufficiently address them during the testimony. Serving a deposition notice on the entity under Federal Rule 30(b)(6) saves the deposing party from having to identify specific individual(s) to depose while still enabling the topics to be fully explored in a single deposition.

Topics to be covered in a 30(b)(6) deposition can vary widely, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, there are some typical topics that the deponent(s) should be prepared to address.

Legal Hold Process: Perhaps the most common area of focus in a 30(b)(6) deposition is the legal hold process as spoliation of data can occur when the legal hold process is unsound and data spoliation is the most common cause of sanctions resulting from the eDiscovery process.  Issues to address include:

  • General description of the legal hold process including all details of that policy and specific steps that were taken in this case to effectuate a hold.
  • Timing of issuing the legal hold and to whom it was issued.
  • Substance of the legal hold communication (if the communication is not considered privileged).
  • Process for selecting sources for legal hold, identification of sources that were eliminated from legal hold, and a description of the rationale behind those decisions.
  • Tracking and follow-up with the legal hold sources to ensure understanding and compliance with the hold process.
  • Whether there are any processes in place in the company to automatically delete data and, if so, what steps were taken to disable them and when were those steps taken?

Collection Process: Logically, the next eDiscovery step discussed in the 30(b)(6) deposition is the process for collecting preserved data:

  • Method of collecting ESI for review, including whether the method preserved all relevant metadata intact.
  • Chain of custody tracking from origination to destination.

Searching and Culling: Once the ESI is collected, the methods for conducting searches and culling the collection down for review must be discussed:

  • Method used to cull the ESI prior to review, including the tools used, the search criteria for inclusion in review and how the search criteria was developed (including potential use of subject matter experts to flush out search terms).
  • Process for testing and refining search terms used.

Review Process: The 30(b)(6) witness(es) should be prepared to fully describe the review process, including:

  • Methods to conduct review of the ESI including review application(s) used and workflow associated with the review process.
  • Use of technology to assist with the review, such as clustering, predictive coding, duplicate and near-duplicate identification.
  • To the extent the process can be described, methodology for identifying and documenting privileged ESI on the privilege log (this methodology may be important if the producing party may request to “claw back” any inadvertently produced privileged ESI).
  • Personnel employed to conduct ESI review, including their qualifications, experience, and training.

Production Process: Information regarding the production process, including:

  • Methodology for organizing and verifying the production, including confirmation of file counts and spot QC checks of produced files for content.
  • The total volume of ESI collected, reviewed, and produced.

Depending on the specifics of the case and discovery efforts, there may be further topics to be addressed to ensure that the producing party has met its preservation and discovery obligations.

So, what do you think?  Have you had to prepare 30(b)(6) witnesses for deposition?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Trends: Deadly Sins of Document Review

With all of the attention on Technology Assisted Review (TAR) during the LegalTech New York (LTNY) show, you would think that no one is conducting manual review anymore.  However, even the staunchest advocates of TAR that I spoke to last week indicated that manual review is still a key part of an effective review process where technology is used to identify potentially responsive and privileged ESI before the manual review process enables the final determinations to be made.

There are “dos” and “don’ts” for conducting an effective manual review.  There was an interesting article in Texas Lawyer (via Law Technology News) entitled The 7 Deadly Sins of Document Review by Dalton Young that focuses on the “don’ts”.  As review is the most expensive phase of the eDiscovery process and legal budgets are stretched to the limit, it’s important to get the most out of your spend on manual review.  With that in mind, here are the seven deadly sins of document review (along with a few of my observations):

  1. Hiring overqualified reviewers: Although there are many qualified lawyers available due to the recent recession, those lawyers often don’t have as much experience as seasoned review paralegals, who are also less expensive and less likely to leave for another offer.
  2. Failing to establish a firm time commitment: If lead counsel doesn’t clearly establish the expected review timeline up front and expect reviewers to commit to that time frame, turnover of reviewers can drive up costs and delay project completion.
  3. Failing to provide reviewers with thorough training on the review tools: Train beyond just the basics so that reviewers can take advantage of advanced software features and training starts with lead counsel.  I would adjust this point a bit: Lead counsel needs to become fully proficient on the review tools, then develop a workflow that manages the efficiency of the reviewers and train the reviewers according to that workflow.  While it may be nice for reviewers to know all of the advanced search features, full understanding of searching best practices isn’t something that can be accomplished in a single training session and should be managed by someone with considerable experience using advanced searching capabilities in an efficient and defensible manner.
  4. Failing to empower reviewers with sufficient background on the case: Providing reviewers with not just a list of expected key words, but also an understanding of the issues of the case enables them to recognize important documents that might not fit within the key words identified.  I would also add that it’s important to have regular “huddles” so that learned knowledge by selected reviewers can be shared with the entire team to maximize review effectiveness.
  5. Failing to foster bonds within the review team: Just like any other team member, reviewers like to know that they’re an important part of the cause and that their work is appreciated, so treating them to lunch or an occasional happy hour can foster a more enjoyable work environment and increase reviewer retention.
  6. Failing to predetermine tags and codes before the project begins: A lead member of the law firm should complete an overview of the discovery to identify the process and establish tags up front instead of “on the fly” as review progresses (even though that tag list will often need to be supplemented regardless how well the upfront overview is conducted).  I would add inclusion of one or more subject matter experts in that upfront process to help identify those tags.
  7. Providing reviewers with a too-structured work environment: The author indicates that counsel should “consider providing a relaxed, somewhat self-directed work environment”.  The key here is “somewhat”, but flexibility in start and stop work times and break/lunch times can enable you to keep good reviewers who may need some flexibility.  Regular monitoring of reviewer metrics will enable the review manager to confirm that reviewer performance is not adversely affected by increased flexibility, or adjust accordingly if the review environment becomes too lax.

So, what do you think?  Are there other “deadly sins” that the author doesn’t mention?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Denies Plaintiff Request For Additional Searches for Acronyms
 

In the case In Re: National Association of Music Merchants, Musical Instruments and Equipment Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2121 (Dec. 19, 2011), U.S. Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter considered a motion by the plaintiffs seeking to compel the defendants to run document searches containing abbreviations and acronyms identified during discovery.  Ruling that the plaintiffs had “ample opportunity” to obtain this discovery earlier in the case, the court denied the motion.

The defendants notified the plaintiffs that they intended to use keyword searches to find relevant documents to plaintiffs’ discovery requests and asked the plaintiffs to provide search terms.  However, the plaintiffs indicated that they could not provide the terms, lacking sufficient information at that point to construct meaningful searches. So, the defendants created their own list of search terms, which they then reviewed with the plaintiffs, who protested that the terms were too restrictive and were unlikely to capture some highly relevant documents. As a result, both sides sat down and negotiated a list of agreed-upon search terms, including several terms specifically targeted to capturing defendant-to-defendant communications.

The defendants began to produce documents based on the agreed-upon terms. Through review of those produced documents, the plaintiffs discovered the frequent use of abbreviations and acronyms and filed a motion seeking to compel the defendants to run document searches containing these abbreviations and acronyms.

While the court noted that keyword searching should be “a cooperative and informed process” and emphasized the importance of “a full and transparent discussion among counsel of the search terminology”, the court chastised the plaintiffs, noting:

“Here, the Court finds Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to obtain discovery regarding abbreviations and acronyms of Defendant companies, and the burden or expense to Defendants in having to comply with Plaintiffs’ request regarding abbreviations and acronyms outweighs its likely benefit. … First, Plaintiffs had two separate opportunities to suggest that Defendants search for abbreviations and acronyms of the Defendant companies; initially, before Defendant’s produced documents; and second, during negotiations between the parties on agreed-upon expanded search terms. In the spirit of the conclusions made at the Sedona Conference, and in light of the transparent discussion among counsel of the search terminology and subsequent agreement on the search method, the Court finds it unreasonable for Defendant to re-search documents they have already searched and produced.

Second, after meeting and conferring with Plaintiffs, and relying on their agreement with Plaintiffs regarding search terms, Defendants have already searched and produced a significant number of documents, thereby incurring significant expenses during this limited discovery period. Further, as articulated by Defendants, the new search terms Plaintiffs have proposed would require some Defendants to review tens of thousands of additional documents that would likely yield only a very small number of additional responsive documents. Therefore, the Court finds a re-search of documents Defendants have already searched and produced is overly burdensome.”

As a result, the court denied the plaintiffs’ request to “run document searches containing abbreviations and acronyms for agreed-upon search terms concepts”.

So, what do you think?  Should the plaintiffs’ have been able to anticipate the abbreviations and acronyms during negotiations or should their motion have been granted to add them later?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Trends: Sampling within eDiscovery Software

Those of you who have been following this blog since early last year may remember that we published a three part series regarding testing your eDiscovery searches using sampling (as part of the “STARR” approach discussed on this blog about a year ago).  We discussed how to determine the appropriate sample size to test your search, using a sample size calculator (freely available on the web).  We also discussed how to make sure the sample size is randomly selected (again referencing a site freely available on the web for generating the random set).  We even walked through an example of how you can test and refine a search using sampling, saving tens of thousands in review costs with defensible results.

Instead of having to go to all of these external sites to manually size and generate your random sample set, it’s even better when the eDiscovery ECA or review software you’re using handles that process for you.  The latest version of FirstPass®, powered by Venio FPR™, does exactly that.  Version 3.5.1.2 of FirstPass has introduced a sampling module that provides a wizard that walks you through the process of creating a sample set to review to test your searches.  What could be easier?

The wizard begins by providing a dialog to enable the user to select the sampling population.  You can choose from tagged documents from one or more tags, documents in saved search results, documents from one or more selected custodians or all documents in the database.  When choosing tags, you can choose ANY of the selected tags, ALL of the selected tags, or even choose documents NOT in the selected tags (for example, enabling you to test the documents not tagged as responsive to confirm that responsive documents weren’t missed in your search).

You can then specify your confidence level (e.g., 95% confidence level) and confidence interval (a.k.a., margin of error – e.g., 4%) using slider bars.  As you slide the bars to the desired level, the application shows you how that will affect the size of the sample to be retrieved.  You can then name the sample and describe its purpose, then identify whether you want to view the sample set immediately, tag it or place it into a folder.  Once you’ve identified the preferred option for handling your sample set, the wizard gives you a summary form for displaying your choices.  Once you click the Finish button, it creates the sample and gives you a form to show you what it did.  Then, if you chose to view the sample set immediately, it will display the sample set (if not, you can then retrieve the tag or folder containing your sample set).

By managing this process within the software, it saves considerable time outside the application having to identify the sample size and create a randomly selected set of IDs, then go back into the application to retrieve and tag those items as belonging to the sample set (which is how I used to do it).  The end result is simplified and streamlined.

So, what do you think?  Is sample set generation within the ECA or review tool a useful feature?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Full disclosure: I work for CloudNine Discovery, which provides SaaS-based eDiscovery review applications FirstPass® (for first pass review) and OnDemand® (for linear review and production).

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

eDiscovery Case Law: Via Rule 45 Subpoena, Plaintiff Allowed to Search Non-Party Personal Hard Drive
 

A party can subpoena a nonparty to provide a personal computer for the forensic review of electronically stored information (ESI) under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In Wood v. Town of Warsaw, N.C., No. 7:10-CV-00219-D, (E.D.N.C. Dec. 22, 2011), a former police chief alleged his former employer unfairly terminated him because of his age under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. During discovery, the plaintiff sent a non-party subpoena to the former town hall manager, who the plaintiff claimed was responsible for his termination. In the subpoena, the plaintiff asked that the former town manager make his personal computer available for a search by a forensic expert using agreed-upon search terms. He also offered to pay for the cost of the search, excluding any privilege review that the town manager wanted to conduct.

The town manager objected to the subpoena and attempted to modify it, claiming the search would be expensive, would be time-consuming, and would invade his privacy. He also claimed he did not use his personal computer for work. He offered to search the computer himself and provide any documents that were responsive to the plaintiff’s requests in the subpoena.

The court reviewed Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which required it to balance three factors in deciding whether to modify or quash a subpoena: (1) the relevance of the information sought, (2) the plaintiff’s need for the information, and (3) the potential hardship to the non-party. In doing so, it concluded that the plaintiff’s narrow request for “non-privileged documents identified by an electronic search for key words related to the claims and defenses asserted by the parties” was reasonable. The court also noted that “in this age of smart phones and telecommuting, it is increasingly common for work to be conducted outside of the office and through the use of personal electronic devices.” Therefore, it was reasonable to expect to find relevant ESI on the town manager’s computer. Finally, the fact that the plaintiff assumed all of the costs except the privilege review minimized the burden on the town manager.

The court also noted that the subpoena’s requests were limited to tangible documents, not including ESI, and would thus not “encompass the information sought by the request to search [the town manager’s] hard drive.”

Therefore, it ruled that the subpoena was proper but modified it to clarify that the plaintiff was not entitled to the complete contents of the hard drive—just to those responsive to the search terms that were neither privileged nor confidential.

So, what do you think?  Should the search have been allowed?  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).

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

eDiscovery Trends: Our 2012 Predictions
 

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

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

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

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

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

eDiscovery Trends: 2012 Predictions – By The Numbers

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

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

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

Here are some of the common themes:

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

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

Some interesting predictions.  Tune in tomorrow for ours!

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

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