e-discovery 2.0

It’s not just in New Jersey that corruption is in the news. It feels like everywhere you go, the authorities are investigating white collar crime and thus have an increasing need for electronic discovery technology.

Earlier this month, as those of you who follow my Twitter feed will know, I was visiting customers and partners in Germany. In virtually every meeting, data privacy and corruption investigations were top of mind, and with good reason. Following the Siemens case last year, German investigators have become much more active and it was easy for my hosts to list example after example of recent cases. There was the Deutsche Bahn case of management spying on its own employees, in violation of German privacy laws; the Deutsche Bank case of management spying on its own board; and, the Deutsche Telecom case of management phone tapping employees to find leaks. There were stories of price collusion among cable car companies in the Alps, and corruption investigations into the activities of German companies in Eastern Europe.

A similar focus on anti-corruption exists closer to home. I have written before about the increase in FCPA investigations and that’s been reflected in recent headlines. As the Wall Street Journal reports, Sun and Shell have recently come under the microscope, according to their public filings. And Frederic Bourke, a founder of the accessories firm Dooney & Bourke, was recently found guilty of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which may result in jail time.

All indications are that the U.S. Department of Justice and its counterparts overseas are just warming up. It’s not a good time for white collar crime, wherever you are in the world.

Judge Grimm’s Victor Stanley case was lauded by many as one of the most significant electronic discovery cases of 2008, mainly for its bold proclamation that e-discovery search is a much more complex and technical discipline than has been typically understood by litigators.

“[F]or lawyers and judges to dare opine that a certain search term or terms would be more likely to produce information than the terms that were used is truly to go where angels fear to tread.”

Despite, legions of articles and blogs on the topic, at least certain portions of the bench haven’t taken heed.  In the case In re: Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litigation, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47636 (June, 5, 2009) (hereinafter “Zurn“), U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery receives points for understanding some basic e-discovery tenants around recall and precision, but then mysteriously goes where “angels fear to tread” by suggesting her own search terms.

Examining the case facts in more detail,…  Zurn is a class action products liability case where discovery was bifurcated (as is often the case – see Spieker v. Quest Cherokee) to first cover the class “certification” component.  Initially, the Magistrate partially closed the door on broader ESI discovery, stating that “while ESI may prove to be relevant to the first stage of discovery, we cannot meaningfully make that prediction now, and require the parties to engage in what could be vastly more expensive, and yet utterly futile, discovery.”  However, the Magistrate didn’t shut the door entirely, suggesting that “should the parties uncover voids in the information disclosed in hard copy form, they are . . . at liberty to press for further discovery including electronically stored information.”

Despite complying with Sedona’s Cooperation Proclamation (”The parties have worked amicably throughout the discovery process”) opposing counsel still got to loggerheads when plaintiff found “voids” in the initial paper productions via third party discovery.  The plaintiff brought a motion to compel ESI discovery and the defendant objected, stated two primary arguments: (1) the Magistrate earlier ruled out ESI discovery and (2) if they had to perform ESI discovery it would be unduly burdensome/expensive.

Judge Montgomery summary rejected the first argument, but was concerned about the burden surrounding the proposed ESI discovery.  Here, the calculations get a bit confusing, but plaintiff’s request would have resulted in 361 gigabytes of ESI from employee email sources, as well as shared “J” and “K” drives.  The defendant multiplied the gigabyte number by 75,000 pages per gigabyte, which would have required “approximately seventeen weeks and cost $ 1,150,000, exclusive of vendor collection and processing costs, to review and process the data.”  Assuming a rather modest $1,000 per gigabyte for processing and hosting costs, defendants could’ve added another $400,000 for the project.

Ultimately, the court was not persuaded by the supporting affidavits, nor the attorney’s representations about the resulting burden:

“It is unclear whether Zurn’s cost and time numbers are based on a review of 27 million pages of documents, the 3.6 million pages of documents limited to the J Drive and custodians’ emails, or a smaller sample of document pages likely to be flagged as a result of a search for certain relevant terms pro-posed by Plaintiffs. The affidavit of Ms. Freestone, an attorney and not an expert on document search and retrieval, is not compelling evidence that the search will be as burdensome as Zurn avers.”

The 361 gigabytes apparently resulted from “hits” corresponding to plaintiff’s 26 search terms.  The court correctly identified that those terms had precision issues (”many of Plaintiffs’ proposed search terms will likely produce a large number of ‘hits’ that have limited relevance in the case.”)

Unfortunately, in an effort to increase the search precision, the Judge did not take heed of Judge Grimm’s warning and surprisingly took matters into her own hands: “the Court will limit the search to the following fourteen terms based on the likelihood that they will  produce relevant documents without including a vast number of documents that are likely irrelevant to the litigation.”  Here is the Judge’s list of keywords:

(1) AADFW,
(2) Corrosion,
(3) Corrosive,
(4) Corrosive Water,
(5) Crack,
(6) De-zinc,
(7) Dezincification,
(8) DZR,
(9) Fail,
(10) IMR,
(11) Leak,
(12) MES,
(13) SCC,
(14) Stress corrosion cracking

Without looking at the underlying data, it’s clear from the outset that Judge Montgomery didn’t craft a good search strategy (as Judge Grimm might have predicted).  For example, terms 2, 3, 4 and 14 could’ve been captured by a single stemmed search using the term “corros*.” Without such a stemmed search approach, the terms would probably have been run singly in the proposed protocol, meaning that each one would’ve had tremendous duplication, thereby resulting in wasted attorney review time and processing costs.

Judge Montgomery did recognize the potential error of her ways and gave the parties an out:

“The parties may decide on a different set of fourteen terms if they choose to do so. Additionally, if the search, as ordered by the Court, proves to be overly burdensome or costly, Zurn may renew its objection by presenting the Court with specific information including evidence from computer experts on applying the search terms, the number of documents identified, and the cost and time burdens of vetting documents.”

This “specific evidence” language seems to track notions from Sedona’s search best practices protocol, which prescribes sampling and iterative search term refinement.  What is surprising is that knowing this she would nevertheless blindly proffer the 14 term search strategy.  Instead, she should’ve quoted Victor Stanley and required the parties to come up with a data driven approach that met requisite precision and recall metrics.

In continuing my Five e-Discovery Questions series, I had the pleasure of sitting down with and interviewing (ok, e-mailing five questions to) Ralph Losey, electronic discovery expert extraordinaire.

Ralph is the writer, lawyer, and educator behind the e-Discovery Team blog. He has been practicing law since 1980 and playing with computers and cyber-communications since 1978. He holds the highest AV peer rating by Martindale Hubbell and is identified as a SuperLawyer in the field of IT.

The questions I posed to Ralph were:

1. We have always loved the name of your Blog -”e-Discovery Team.” It succinctly sums up your overall approach and philosophy of e-discovery. What’s the current state of the “e-discovery team” in most organizations? How has it progressed over the last few years? Where does it need to go to next?

2. Should there be an adverse inference distinction between cases where e-discovery may have been conducted in a sloppy, incomplete fashion, but without malice, versus one in which the party actively sought to hide or suppress documents in the case?

3. Are judges equipped with enough information to be able to make this distinction (between intentional and accidental destruction)?

4. What is the biggest gap today between e-discovery vendor offerings and what legal end-users need?

5. How much time does it really take you to crank out one of your blog posts? Does the hot Florida sun keep you indoors typing away at your computer? Or do you have some sort of waterproof laptop that allows you to write while floating in your screened in pool?

To read Ralph Losey’s answers and more, read the full version (complete with all cinematic references in video) at his e-Discovery Team blog article, “Five Easy Pieces – An Interview Without Toast.”

Part I of this series on managing e-discovery costs discussed a number of approaches for reducing e-discovery costs.  One of the approaches is to perform early case assessments.  Pioneered by Dupont and others, the objective of this approach is to learn a substantial percentage of the key case facts within a short period of time so that the litigation team can make better decisions quicker.  There are a number of good sources for information on what is early case assessment (ECA) and how to conduct ECAs including John DeGroote’s articles on the Settlement Perspectives blog, Eric L. Barnum’s “An Introduction to Early Case Assessment” and Dean Gonsowski’s Early Case Assessment article on this blog.  The point that these articles make is that early case assessment is a different approach to litigation that can significantly reduce the overall cost of litigation and electronic discovery.

As Mr. DeGroote highlights, the two main benefits of ECA are: better settlements and better case management.  First, ECA enables the litigation team to make a better decision as to whether to settle or not by giving the team an enhanced understanding of the costs and benefits of settling.  Early case assessment also provides the team with valuable information for negotiating the best possible settlement with the other side.  Second, even if the case is not settled, ECA can reduce costs through improved case management.  For example, e-discovery costs can be better managed by targeting discovery efforts to reduce the data reviewed and by improved planning and budgeting.  Overall, Dupont estimates that, by performing early case assessment on 18 of their cases, they reduced their costs by over a third.

Given the clear benefits of early case assessments, one would expect that early case assessments would be the norm.  However, as Mr. Gonsowski points out, this doesn’t appear to be the case.  Mr. Gonsowski points out that one of the reasons for this “may lie in a common litigation mindset:  i.e., the desire to avoid costs for as long as possible.”  This makes sense and I would venture to suggest some additional reasons.  First, ECA can be hard to do, especially when it comes to the e-discovery piece of ECA.  Traditional lead-times for performing collection, processing and loading electronic documents into a review platform are measured in weeks or months.  And because ECA works best when analysis is performed iteratively (e.g. start with a small, targeted set of documents, analyze them, use that analysis to target additional information, and repeat) and often ideally on-site, this long cycle time can shackle the efficient execution of an early case assessment strategy.  Second, ECA can be too expensive, again using traditional approaches.  If a company spends too much money on an early case assessment, they might be less inclined to settle because of how much they have spent already.

Recent advances in electronic discovery software, however, are addressing these issues and making it easier to perform early case assessments.  This newer software, which can often be installed on-site as well as in a hosted fashion, can be used to review data within hours of it being collected and often provides content analysis technology that speeds up analysis to help attorneys find the critical information faster.  The lower cycle time allows for prioritized and iterative analysis largely removing technology constraints from the adoption of early case assessment methodology.  This newer ECA software is also less expensive because it is more automated and easy-to-use than traditional technology.

An early case assessment case study of Holme, Roberts & Owen’s (HRO) experience performing an early case assessment, is a good example of what is now possible with new software solutions.  HRO was representing a client who was facing a time-critical false advertising lawsuit. With expedited discovery ordered and a motion for a preliminary injunction pending, the attorneys at HRO had less than two weeks to gather and analyze the underlying documentation and determine case strategy. Leveraging new e-discovery software, HRO was able to perform the early case assessment in days and at cost much lower than traditional means.  The ECA ultimately enabled HRO to conclude the matter on a favorable basis for their client saving significant costs that would have been incurred if they had been required to continue the litigation.

As the HRO case study shows, early case assessments have become a powerful method for reducing not only e-discovery costs but also overall litigation costs.  Any corporation looking to lower their e-discovery and litigation costs would do well to consider adopting early case assessment methodology where practical.  How do you expect the frequency of practicing ECA to change over the next year?  Please take a moment to fill out our poll.

Unfortunately, though, early case assessments are also not a silver bullet solution to the e-discovery cost problem because some cases are going to require full discovery and will go to trial no matter what.  To address these costs, other methods are required.

There are legions of Arnold Schwarzenegger quotes, including the famous “I’ll be back” from The Terminator.  Well, true to this sentiment, The Governator finally coughed up his hairball and made good on the promises to push through California’s long overdue alignment with the electronic discovery changes made by the FRCP on 12/1/2006.

Citing mysterious budgetary concerns (which still elude me), The Governator initially vetoed Assembly Bill No. 5.  But as of July 1^st, California’s new electronic discovery provisions were finally made law.  Interestingly enough, California (which tends to more progressive than most) was way behind the times in terms of adopting the new framework of the FRCP…

“The California Discovery Act hadn’t really been revised or amended since the mid-1980s,” said Patrick O’Donnell, the supervising attorney for the Judicial Council’s Office of the General Counsel who led efforts to write the state’s e-discovery law. “This is really a major step to address the changes in the world of electronic data since then. … This gives a lot more clarity and certainty in how the issue will be focused on.”

Instead of the alleged budgetary concerns it appeared that California had (and still has) bigger fish to fry and needed some extra cycles to get lawmakers, attorneys, Silicon Valley leaders and court administrators all on the same page.

The new California provisions pretty closely mirror the FRCP language with a few minor exceptions, called out by Joshua M. Briones and Anahit Tagvoryan in their recent article…

• Minor tweaks to the Rule 37 language around the safe harbor provisions broadening slightly (beyond “loss”) the California language to also preclude sanctions where ESI is “lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten.”
• No corresponding meet & confer provisions in the California statute similar to the Rule 16 and 26 sections in the FRCP.
• Inaccessibility provisions of FRCP 26(b)(2)(B) changed slightly to require producing party to file a protective order for ESI it believes is not reasonably accessible due to “undue burden or expense.”

While a long time in the offing, these provisions (despite the minor tweaks) should be a refreshing change for California practitioners who’ve been waiting too long for the other shoe to drop.  Now, case law can start to develop, which will continue the honing-in process…

Part I of this series discussed a number of approaches for reducing electronic discovery costs.  One of the approaches is to implement a document retention policy.  The popularity of document retention policies increased in the early part of the decade with the passage of new financial regulation, such as Sarbanes-Oaxley.  Data retention policy popularity has now increased again with the passage of the FRCP and the recognition of the challenge of electronic discovery costs.  How effective, though, are document retention policies in reducing electronic discovery costs?  Do they solve the electronic discovery cost problem?

It is certainly true that any policy that enforces the deletion of documents that might otherwise be discoverable should reduce electronic discovery costs.  Thus, document retention policies, just like enforced mailbox size limits, can absolutely help reduce e-discovery costs.  However, implementing a retention policy is not easy.  A recent article in the New York Law Journal by Adam Rosman is very insightful in this regard when he says, “the rub is implementation.”   Mr. Rosman outlines a conversation between a hypothetical company’s Associate General Counsel and the CTO that demonstrates that the major challenge with retention policies is not designing one.  Rather, the challenge is implementing a policy that effectively balances the needs for litigation readiness and e-discovery, regulatory compliance and knowledge management and can be cost-effectively enforced throughout a company’s IT organization and user community.  Given this, it’s not surprising that a 2006 study by Nextpage and CXO research found that “while two-thirds of the companies surveyed have a document retention policy in effect, almost half of them don’t actively enforce it” and why 39% of respondents cited implementing a standard policy and 34% percent said user compliance were major weaknesses in implementing retention policies.

Because of these implementation challenges, retention policies are not a quick way to reduce your e-discovery costs.  They are also not going to reduce enough data to solve an organization’s e-discovery cost “problem.”  First, due to the implementation challenges, retention policies are not going to delete all the electronically stored information (ESI) they should.  Second, HIPAA, Sarbanes-Oaxley (SOX) and FINRA regulations require that many documents must be retained for several years.  Finally, business users will demand many exceptions: emails, loose files, collaboration content, financial records, contracts, etc. that they want to save beyond the retention period for important business reasons.  As a result, even companies with retention policies are going to have a substantial and growing amount of discoverable ESI and the electronic discovery costs that go with that.

Document retention policies thus are a bit like taking vitamins.  They are likely going to help reduce the amount of time you are sick – although you’ll probably find some “studies” that say they do help and some that don’t.  But when you get sick, they aren’t going to make you better.  For that, you need a remedy that directly targets the specific problem.  Similarly, document retention policies, and you can say the same thing about all information management solutions to e-discovery, will help reduce e-discovery costs, but they won’t solve the e-discovery cost problem.  Specific e-discovery solutions are necessary to do that.  We’ll discuss many of these specific e-discovery solutions in the next set of posts in this series.