e-discovery 2.0

In their latest survey, entitled “E-Discovery Market Trends: A View from the Legal Department,” Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG) analysts Brian Babineau and Katey Wood analyze a number of interesting statistics and provide a range of insightful conclusions.  By surveying general counsel from large, mid-market (500-999 employees) and enterprise-class organizations in North America they were able to dive into a range of eDiscovery topics, including pain points, operational expenses and prioritizations on a go-forward basis.  Some are more intuitive than others, but in either case the results serve as good calibration metrics for those who endeavor to understand the corporate eDiscovery state of the nation.

“Most corporations are not tracking e-discovery spending…” In what may be the most notable finding of this ESG report, 60% of survey respondents claim that they did not track annual eDiscovery spending in 2010.  The authors correctly note that the eDiscovery process, “which can be highly unpredictable due to its project-by-project nature to begin with, has historically been outsourced to service providers charging at variable rates and often billed back to companies via their law firms.”  Despite the significant challenges of tracking eDiscovery spending, it’s nevertheless irresponsible for organizations to keep their heads in the sand regarding such a significant operational expense.

As the old saw goes, “you can’t manage what you can’t measure,” so it’s almost inconceivable to think that so many organizations aren’t tracking such a significant expense category.  For organizations who want to create a repeatable business process, as opposed to the fire-drill chaos that is typically associated with eDiscovery, it’s vitally important to accurately capture core eDiscovery metrics.  For starters, it’s useful to understand basic collection parameters, such as of the typical numbers of key custodians, average data volumes per custodian, data expansion rates, de-duplication statistics, etc.  Once these metrics are in place, it then becomes possible to manage the process and reduce costs.

Katey went on to expound in an exclusive quote for EDD 2.0:

“E-discovery can be managed as a strategic business process with an understanding of costs, performance and outcomes. When there’s no basis for reporting or comparison, it’s pin the tail on the donkey.  Corporate litigants won’t ever know they’re getting their money’s worth if they don’t even know what they’re spending.”

“E-Discovery accuracy/efficiency isn’t being measured, in large part.” Similar to the failure to measure eDiscovery costs, a full two thirds of GCs (67%) aren’t tracking the “efficiency and/or accuracy of e-discovery document review.” Until corporate counsel can link expectations of competency/efficiency with oversight and performance metrics, outside law firms will likely avoid having their feet held to the fire.  This passive stance makes transparency and process improvement difficult at best.  Additionally, this model of having expectations for efficiency, with low or no accountability, doesn’t bode well for the quick adoption of enabling technologies like predictive coding, since the driver has to inherently be the need/desire for increased efficiency (which axiomatically equals lower law firm review bills).

“Corporate information governance and litigation readiness (especially defensible deletion) are a priority, but not yet a reality.” From an internal prioritization perspective, more than two thirds (69%) of respondents identified their desire to expire/delete data more consistently, “thereby limiting unnecessary data retention for future litigation requests.”  Savvy enterprises correctly recognized the “multi-prong threat of unregulated data retention: the large amounts of irrelevant data ultimately produced for legal review, the greater difficulty of hanging onto potentially litigious documents past their required retention periods.”

This finding is very encouraging, and it ties into the upward momentum the industry is seeing regarding information governance generally – particularly linking the reactive (right) side of the EDRM with the logically connected and proactive (left) side of the EDRM.  As a good first step it’s critical to see organizations now associating good information governance hygiene with lower costs and better eDiscovery response times.  The ESG finding also triangulates with results from the recent Information Retention and eDiscovery Survey, which found that companies having good information governance hygiene were often able to respond much faster and more successfully to an eDiscovery/investigation requests, often suffering fewer negative consequences.

The only downside to the positive information governance trend, as reported by the survey, was that,

“while there are great benefits to defensible deletion, internal initiatives for implementing it too often are stymied by difficulty in obtaining cross functional consensus and authorization, particularly as it touches so many other critical processes like regulatory compliance and legal hold.”

“Legal hold processes are still very manual.” Another similar question revealed that many companies are attempting to get their information governance house in order, but are still in the very early stages.  When asked about their  current legal hold notification and tracking process, a whopping 69% of organizations said that they are using a “manual process performed by internal staff using e-mail and spreadsheets, etc.”  And, another 6% said they either had no formal process or tracking mechanism.

Given the risks attendant to flaws in the preservation process this area is ripe for improvement.  The good news is that 54% of survey respondents are intending to improve their legal hold process, with 25% planning improvement within the next 12 months.  This is a healthy acknowledgement that there is risk, and with a modicum of investment (time, personnel, procedures, and technology) the legal hold area can be brought up to current best practices.

The ESG survey is a welcome temperature gauge into the state of corporate legal departments.  It notes, in conclusion, “with the staggering growth, diversity and dispersion of data, the pain e-discovery is currently causing large and serial litigants are only a symptom of the larger problem of unwieldy and under-developed information management affecting all businesses.”  With data insights from the ESG survey, it’s becoming clear that foundational information governance elements (like deploying auditable legal hold procedures, tracking eDiscovery spending, updating data maps, etc.) are desperately needed by the many organizations that want to turn eDiscovery into a repeatable business process.  The good news is that many of these organization have improvements in mind for the next 12 months, and the challenge will be to make sure these proactive projects maintain the same level of organizational urgency that it often present for more reactive tasks.

We’ve all heard the phrase that “everything is bigger in Texas” and the little “mini-conference” held in Dallas, TX last Friday was no exception.  The Discovery Subcommittee held a small, one-day conference to tackle some big issues related to preservation and sanctions that could ultimately lead to amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules).

The Subcommittee’s primary purpose was to discuss “preservation and sanctions issues” by using the following topics as guidelines:

• The nature and scope of the current “problem”
• The role of technology
• Possible solutions to the problem

Counsel from large companies like Google, General Electric, and Exxon Mobil participated side by side with outside counsel from both plaintiffs’ and defense bar to discuss what some characterized as a lack of clear direction in the current Rules.  Government lawyers, academics, and federal judges including Judges David Campbell (D. Az.), Shira Scheindlin (S.D.N.Y.), Paul Grimm (D. Md.), John Facciola (D.D.C.), Lee Rosenthal (S.D. Tx.), Michael Mosman (D. Ore.), and Nan Nolan (N. D. Ill.) helped round out the field to make for a lively discussion with multiple perspectives represented.  The following summary highlights some of the key viewpoints and areas of contention debated throughout the day.[1]

The nature and scope of the problem

An underlying theme throughout the day was whether or not preservation and sanctions challenges warrant amending the Rules.  Not surprisingly, counsel for large organizations that commonly bear the brunt of large and frequent document requests lobbied for rule amendments that provide more certainty around when the duty to preserve evidence is triggered, the scope of that duty, and how sanctions are applied.

In support of this position, some corporate attorneys argued that the lack of certainty in the current Rules unfairly requires organizations to err on the side of preserving evidence early and broadly to avoid the risk of sanctions.  Since preserving evidence can be extremely expensive and the duty may be triggered before litigation even begins, they argue that changes to the Rules are necessary.  One corporate attorney framed the issue by providing specific details about costs associated with preserving data for different cases.  He explained that in one situation, his organization has spent more than $5 million to locate, collect, preserve, and maintain data for an ongoing matter even though a complaint has never been filed.  He went on to explain the dilemma by stating: “not preserving asks us to take a chance with our reputation.”

In response, a few attendees questioned how preservation related expenses could spiral so high even before attorney review.  Others pointed out that if the current Rules were better utilized, specifically the meet-and-confer provisions of Rule 26(f), then many preservation challenges could be minimized.  Supporters of better Rule 26(f) engagement complained that counsel for large organizations often refuse to discuss preservation related issues and thereby fuel problems related to the scope of preservation themselves.   Others suggested that if organizations enforced better information management policies instead of keeping “everything forever”, then the magnitude of the problem could be reduced.

Technology

The Subcommittee members generally agreed that the evolution of technology has led to massive data growth which creates new electronic data challenges.  Electronically stored information (ESI) is often duplicative, typically resides in many different technology systems, and can be difficult to locate on a case by case basis.  There was some thoughtful discussion about how data archiving and cloud computing technology are important tools for helping organizations manage these information problems more effectively.  Another commentator acknowledged that although “predictive coding” may be helpful for “reviewing” data, it requires significant human involvement and simply does not solve the problem at hand.

Surprisingly, aside from the comments above, the technology discussion focused mainly on the issue of what constitutes “possession, custody or control” under Rule 34 in today’s environment of social media, cloud computing, and mobile devices.  Unfortunately, there was no discussion of either the role legal technology solutions play in minimizing risk and cost or of the impact the current Rules have on public policy.  For example, the Subcommittee did not address whether organizations that invest in technology in order to automate their internal data management and electronic discovery process should be afforded more protection under Rule 26(b)(2)(B) (“not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost”) than organizations that choose not to invest in technology.  If an organization’s technology investment (or lack thereof) is not a factor, does Rule 26(b)(2)(B) have the unintended effect of stifling meaningful legal technology investment by some organizations?  Similarly, do advancements in legal technology diminish the need for a Rule amendment that, at its core, is geared toward reducing costs?  In my opinion, the manner in which organizations are using technology today is an important factor that warrants deeper discussion and a subject I intend to address in a future publication soon.  Stay tuned.

Possible solutions

Discussion about possible solutions to the problem revealed more about the contrasting viewpoints in the room.  Notably, the Department of Justice representatives and those typically aligned with the plaintiffs’ bar tended to lobby for better adherence to the framework contained in the existing Rules in lieu of drafting new Rules.  These folks generally appeared to fall into the “No New Rule” or “Not Yet” camp, and cited the relative newness of the 2006 Rule Amendments and the fact that only about one percent of federal cases involve sanctions in support of their position that Rule amendments are premature or not needed.  Along the same lines, many called for further study and evaluation of the issues through organizations such as The Sedona Conference and the 7th Circuit Electronic Discovery Pilot Program.  Others referenced the importance of looking to evolving case law for more guidance before moving forward with Rule amendments.

In stark contrast, those on the other side of the aisle that typically represent large organizations, lobbied for bright line rules or at least “guideposts” to provide more certainty regarding preservation.  For example, one participant suggested that the duty to preserve evidence should begin when a complaint is served.  Another suggested that the duty should be triggered when a potential litigant is “reasonably certain to be a party to litigation” – a standard that is arguably narrower than the commonly applied “reasonably anticipates litigation” standard articulated in Judge Scheindlin’s frequently cited Zubulake v. UBS Warburg line of decisions.

Those calling for more certainty regarding triggering events also provided recommendations for addressing the scope of the preservation duty and the application of sanctions.  A suggestion to incorporate language that presumptively limits the number of custodians (10) and documents (by age) met resistance on the grounds that trying to apply a one-size-fits-all rule fails to acknowledge that the facts and circumstances of every case are different and so too are the litigants.  Similarly, recommendations to limit sanctions for evidence spoliation to situations where a litigant’s conduct is “intentional” or “willful” were met with a chilly reception by those favoring better adherence to the current Rules.

Conclusion

Time did not permit comprehensive discussion and analysis of every perspective, but the mini-conference highlighted the complexity surrounding preservation and sanctions issues and revealed some polarized viewpoints about how to solve those issues.  Perhaps one glimmer of consensus was the acknowledgement that “pre-litigation” obligations to preserve evidence before service of a complaint is often challenging for large organizations.  However, whether this and other issues should be addressed through better education, more stringent enforcement of existing rules, or by modifying the existing rules to include more “guideposts” remains unsettled.

What do you think?  Please respond to the poll, above right, to let us know whether you think amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) is necessary to address some of the preservation and sanctions issues discussed above.

To join the conversation and receive automatic updates when new information is posted to this blog, please subscribe to e-discovery 2.0.

---

[1] A more exhaustive list of participants and sample questions was incorporated into the Federal Rules Advisory Committee’s June 29, 2011 memorandum announcing the mini-conference.  Similarly, the events leading up to the mini-conference are described in more detail as part of my previous postings on the same subject.

It is my great pleasure to welcome Matt Nelson to the E-Discovery 2.0 writing team. Matt is our third licensed attorney and, like Dean Gonsowski and Brandon D’Agostino, will be writing on the legal aspects of electronic discovery. In doing so, he will draw upon his prior experience as a litigation attorney at Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley, and as a legal technology consultant at Kroll and Summation. He’s a really bright guy with a wry sense of humor, and I’m looking forward to hearing his perspective on the broad range of issues that legal professionals engaged in e-discovery wrestle with every day.

Given the size of our writing team, it’s worth taking this opportunity to say a few words about what you (the reader) can expect from our blog. Our team meets on a monthly basis to discuss topics of interest. In doing so, we hope to speak with one voice on broad range of issues:

• Kurt Leafstand and Venkat Rangan will write about the latest technology trends and their impact on electronic discovery;

• Brandon, Dean, and Matt will cover case law and best practices from both a corporate and law firm perspective; and,

• I will continue to write about the business of electronic discovery, and its development as an industry.

All of us aim to inform in a style that’s engaging and easy to read. We hope you enjoy reading our posts as much as we do writing them.

I was at the Sedona Conference Working Group’s Mid Year meeting last week where 80 or so electronic discovery practitioners and judges met to discuss hot topics in bucolic Denver, Colorado.  Without getting into the particulars of any discussion, several themes continue to stay on the front burner, including the progress of the cooperation proclamation and the relatively newer issue of proportionality (as highlighted recently by The American College of Trial Lawyers Task Force on Discovery).

Aside from those overarching themes I was struck by how polarizing the discussion was around one recent case in particular.  While many notable commentators have already made this the most talked about cases of the year, Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 2009 WL 910801 (D. Utah Mar. 30, 2009) continues to stimulate discussion.   Adams v. Dell is a patent infringement case where the plaintiff, alleged that one of the defendants (ASUS) destroyed critical pieces of evidence and should be sanctioned accordingly.

The underlying facts and timelines are fairly complex, but in summary the dispute centered around the alleged infringement of several patents developed to resolve defects in floppy disks during in the late 80′s.  What makes this decision so vexing is that it starts out as a preservation case, but quickly confuses that concept with data retention and information management practices/policies.

So, starting with the preservation angle…  Both sides fortunately agreed about the definition for the duty to preserve evidence, which in the 10^th circuit begins when a party “knows or should know [it] is relevant to imminent or ongoing litigation.”  The triggering of the preservation duty was not surprisingly much more complicated and ASUS (the responding party) claimed that its duty to preserve wasn’t triggered until early 2005, when they received a letter warning it of potential litigation because of the alleged patent infringement.  But, the Magistrate held that “counsel’s letter is not the inviolable benchmark” and the duty to preserve was triggered much earlier (in the 1999-2000 time frame) because similar litigation was rampant in the industry, highlighted by a late 1999 suit where Toshiba paid billions of dollars in a class action settlement related to similar floppy disk issues.

Leaving the murky preservation issue by the wayside for a bit, the Magistrate then moved into ASUS’ claims that FRCP 37(e) provided a safe harbor for its alleged destruction.

“ASUS claims it can find a safe harbor against sanctions because of the recently adopted rule that sanctions may not be generally imposed for ‘failing to provide electronically stored information lost’ if a party can show the loss was ‘a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.’”

Nice try, but strike two for ASUS…

“ASUS provided an extensive declaration from an experienced consultant in e-discovery. While he stated the reasons for and history of ASUS’ ‘distributed information architecture,’ he did not state any opinion as to the reasonableness or good-faith in the system’s operation. And while he says ‘ASUSTeK’s data architecture relies predominantly on storage on individual user’s workstations,’ his 31-page declaration does not show he is familiar with the precise practices pointed out in the declarations of employees. Those employees’ declarations describe the practice of ASUS’ email system to overwrite old data regardless of its significance; ASUS’ reliance on employees for all email and data archiving; and the process of replacement of computers, which also relies on employees to transfer data from their old to their new computers. Neither the expert nor ASUS speak of archiving ‘policies;’ they speak of archiving ‘practices.’

The court’s distinction between “policies” and “practices” seems like a convenient (perhaps “Deus ex machina”) way to discount ASUS’ data retention activities and prevent the use of the FRCP 37(e) safe harbor.  Since in most instances, “bona fide, consistent and reasonable” document retention “policies” have been found to be presumptively valid by everyone ranging from Sedona (Guideline 3) to Carlucci v. Piper Aircraft Corp. and Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 125 S.Ct. 2129 (2005).  It’s not clear how he draws the important “practices” distinction and why said practices are exponentially different from presumptively valid “policies.”

It’s precisely this line of thinking that confuses the alleged failure of the duty to preserve (discussed at the outset of the opinion) with the duty to retain information.  The court seems to think it’s an “unreasonable” practice to have custodians responsible for compliance with data retention and this deficiency made the safe harbor unavailable.

“ASUS has explained that it has no centralized storage of electronic documents, email or otherwise, and relies on individual employees to archive email (which will be deleted if left on the server) and electronic documents (which reside only on individual workstations).”

Not only is this custodian-based retention practice, in and of itself, reasonable; it’s probably the most common form of data retention practices seen at corporations today.  While a number of vendors have promised intelligent retention systems that work without any significant human intervention, for the most part those solutions are still in their infancy.  Additionally, there are significant technical challenges to have an application manage *all* ESI (Electronically Stored Information) that exist for a given custodian (including desktop files, instant messaging, text messaging, social media, etc.) As such, most companies must inherently rely upon their custodians to both retain and preserve data pursuant to company policies.  The court not only seems to miss this point, but also attempts to impose an obligation that corporations must prevent the “loss of data” above and beyond specific preservation obligations.

“ASUS’ practices invite the abuse of rights of others, because the practices tend toward loss of data. The practices place operations-level employees in the position of deciding what information is relevant to the enterprise and its data retention needs. ASUS alone bears responsibility for the absence of evidence it would be expected to possess. While Adams has not shown ASUS mounted a destructive effort aimed at evidence affecting Adams or at evidence of ASUS’ wrongful use of intellectual property, it is clear that ASUS’ lack of a retention policy and irresponsible data retention practices are responsible for the loss of significant data.”

Although the exact rationale was unclear, the court held that ASUS violated their duty to preserve and that the loss of evidence could not be excused as a “routine, good faith operation of electronic information systems.” While the court ruled that sanctions were appropriate, it reserved final sanctions pending the close of discovery.   Depending on what those ultimate sanctions look like, it seems pretty likely that this decision will be subject to appellate review.  Until then, it’s probably too soon to treat this questionable holding as gospel.  Wary corporations however should continue to bolster the “reasonableness” of their information management/retention/destruction policies and practices so that in hindsight a court won’t be able to take away the FRCP electronic discovery 37(e) safe harbor by casting those “practices” as being unreasonable.

When we first started brainstorming about our “Five Questions” feature a few months back, Tom Gelbmann was on our short list of “must-have” interviewees. As most readers are probably aware, Tom Gelbmann, together with George Socha, founded the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) project and, also with George, directs the annual Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey. Since 1993 he has been managing director of Gelbmann and Associates, a consultancy based in Saint Paul, Minnesota.

1. There’s been a lot of buzz (particularly within the vendor community!) about the changes to the Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey. You and George have written about this a bit before, but we’ll try to take a slightly different angle: Beyond concerns about people taking rankings out of context or as an excuse for not doing due diligence, were there specific trends and drivers among end-users of e-discovery products and services that motivated the change?

The most important reason for killing the rankings was that they were too often interpreted by end-users as being a “one size fits all” evaluation of top product and vendors, and we thought this type of decision-making was becoming increasingly dangerous as electronic discovery was increasingly in its visibility and importance. It was similar to a prospective car buyer focusing in on the cars that earned the Car & Driver Car of the Year award. They may not need a BMW 3-Series or a Porsche Boxster if they need something to haul lumber or transport the kids to hockey practice. We also saw the opportunity to deliver something that could be useful in identifying software and service providers that meet a set of requirements based on the EDRM model. The result of the overhaul of the Survey we are currently working on will be the capability to specify requirements, dial up/down weighting of criteria and see which providers fit those parameters. Our objective is to deliver something more useful than the rankings.

2. Your other main project is, of course, the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM). How did EDRM get started? Was it you and George scribbling on the back of a napkin in a coffee shop?

It wasn’t quite on the back of a napkin, but close – it was an Etch-a-Sketch®! Actually, the idea came out of the 2004 Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey. After the dust settled in the fall of 2004, we took a step back to look at what we learned. It wasn’t difficult to spot the #1 issue concerning consumers and providers: confusion and frustration over the lack of standards in the electronic discovery industry. Many people told us this was the Wild West and something needed to be done. That something was a standards initiative. The reference model approach came from looking at the tremendous value the Open Systems Interconnection Reference Model had on computer communications. Developed in the late 1970s, this model provided a common structure for development of products. We thought a similar approach would work for electronic discovery. We started talking to providers and consumers about this idea and initially thought we may get 15 or so organizations interested… 20 tops. We now list the EDRM alumni of 500+ individuals from 140+ organizations.

3. EDRM will be celebrating its 5th year at the upcoming May meeting in Saint Paul. What’s surprised you most about the first five years of the Project?

The biggest surprise by far is that there was a second year, to say nothing of a fifth year that we are now planning. We started out with the objective of keeping the project to a single year, thinking that having a hard deadline would motivate everyone to complete the project on time. We also knew that placing all content in the public domain would attract interest and participation in this initiative that would help the entire industry.

4. The global recession is having a tremendous impact on the electronic discovery community. Any thoughts on how the landscape will be reshaped coming out of the storm?

Potential influencers keep surfacing, making it difficult to anticipate what is around the corner. Certainly, we have seen and will continue to see consolidation of providers. Acquisitions will likely continue as will dissolutions. It is clear that everyone is tightening the belt. Some corporations and law firms who had begun to expand internal electronic discovery operations will sharply curtail or stop the expansion. Experienced, highly capable people will be out of a job and looking for new opportunities, which means short term turmoil for these folks, but hopefully long term success within well managed organizations. The volume of work doesn’t seem to be ebbing yet, so there is great opportunity for the survivors.

5. You and George Socha are the “Dynamic Duo” of electronic discovery and have been working together for a long time.  Anything you want to reveal about George that might not be generally known?  Hidden talents? Secret ambitions?

Interesting question. George is a man of many talents. One pleasant surprise to me was learning of his expertise in baking. I thought I was good at making good pie crusts, after a dozen years making Thanksgiving pies with my daughters. My crusts have gotten rave reviews from the family. But George is the real expert. His creations are a work of art. When it comes to secret ambitions, I think he would like to assemble a massively parallel computer complex in his home office. He has a good start with a half dozen monitors, several computers, servers, etc. and shows no signs of slowing down.

In today’s economy, controlling electronic discovery costs has taken on a new urgency.  Because the financials of many companies have deteriorated so quickly, there is great interest in finding methods to reduce any costs in the short-term.  As  a result, anyone in a company’s IT or legal department that comes up with a plan to substantially reduce their company’s electronic discovery costs in the short-term is likely to become a hero in their company.  So, what’s the best way to reduce electronic discovery costs quickly?

A natural first step is to decide where to focus.  Which electronic discovery activities are the most costly today?  Which have the greatest room for cost reductions?  The EDRM model serves as a good guide for answering such questions by breaking electronic discovery activities into Information Management, Identification, Collection, Preservation, Processing, Analysis, Review, Production and Presentation.  One thing I have noticed when interacting with enterprises is that the IT and legal departments tend to focus on different stages within electronic discovery based on their perspective.  IT managers naturally concentrate on the information management, identification, collection and preservation activities because these are the activities in which they are most involved.  Similarly, legal managers naturally look to preservation, processing, production and review.

Given these different perspectives, it’s important to take an objective approach to calculating electronic discovery costs.  Doing so is not that easy.  Costs can vary significantly depending on each company, the nature of the case, nature of the data, which vendors/technologies that are used and a variety of other factors.  Costs also come in many different forms: direct hard dollar costs, such as spending on legal discovery and electronic discovery fees delivered by third parties; indirect hard dollar costs, such as time spent by company employees; and soft dollar costs, such as increased risk that could lead to adverse judgments and sanctions.  Finally, electronic discovery costs are often buried across both legal operating budgets and IT budgets making it hard to separate these costs from the costs of other activities.

Undertaking an internal analysis to understand your company’s electronic discovery costs is a valuable activity if you want to better control these costs.  However, while costs do vary between companies, most companies will find that the same activities contribute the most direct hard dollar costs and that these are the costs that are easiest to control in the short-term.  To demonstrate this, let’s walk through a generic cost analysis of a typical case.  Fortunately, we don’t have to start from scratch in doing this.  Leonard Deutchman, an author of several excellent electronic discovery articles, has already done most of the work in a May 2007 article, “Get Ready for the Rules Changes, Part VIII“.  In this article, Mr. Deutchman walks the reader through a hypothetical litigation between an Investor and a Venture Capital firm.  He describes the typical electronic discovery activities and calculates the direct hard dollar costs for these activities including:

• Collection: Mr. Deutchman calculates that it costs $10k to collect 400GB from 8 hard drives and the data of 8 custodians on file and email servers using an outside vendor (doing it in-house can be less expensive).  Note that this excludes any collection from back-up tapes, which can be more costly.
• Culling & Processing: it costs $4k to reduce the 400GB to 90GB by removing non-relevant file types prior to processing.  Processing 90GB costs $90k at $1000/GB.  De-duplication and the application of search terms reduce the data to 25GB.
• Production: it costs $4k to produce the 4GB of data that is deemed responsive and not privileged to produce to the other side.

Mr. Deutchman doesn’t identify direct hard dollar costs for Information Management, Identification or Preservation.  These activities are typically not associated with direct hard dollar costs on a per matter basis.  Rather, they involve indirect hard dollar costs such as employee time and software licenses.  Mr. Deutchman also does not provide an estimate for the costs of review.  However, since review does contribute significant direct hard dollar costs for every matter, this gap needs to be filled in order to get a complete sense of the direct hard dollar costs.  The two big buckets of cost in review are: attorney review costs and review software costs.  In Mr. Deutchman’s hypothetical litigation one might imagine the following scenario for these costs:

• 25GB translates into 195,000 documents using the low end of the documents per GB email (9,000/GB) and documents per GB files (7,000/GB). Industry survey data that is available from EDRM.  This example assumes that 40% of the 25 GBs is email.
• The attorneys reviewing the data charge $75/hour and make 100 document decisions per hour.  This translates to approximately $146,000.
• The hosted review service costs $50/GB/month and, in this case, let’s assume we host it for 6 paid months.  This costs $7,500.

If we tabulate these costs and calculate the direct hard dollar cost shares for each stage, the clear take-away is that Processing and Review costs comprise the vast majority of direct hard dollar costs.  Collection and Production direct hard dollar costs are significantly smaller in comparison.

EDRM Stage	Hard Dollar Costs ($k)	Share
Collection	10	4%
Processing	94	36%
Review	153	58%
Production	4	2%
Total	261	100%
Total for Processing & Review	247	94%

Now, it’s possible to come up with many arguments for why Mr. Deutchman or my estimates could be high including different assumptions for attorney hourly review costs, higher document decision rates, cheaper vendor pricing, etc.  Similarly, it’s possible to come up with many arguments for why the estimates could be low including the need to perform multiple review passes, slower document decision rates, more expensive vendor charges, etc.  In addition, each company will have their own unique circumstances that will change this picture.  However, this generic analysis strongly suggests that more customized analyses would come to the same conclusion: if you want to reduce electronic discovery costs quickly, then you need to focus on processing and review costs.  One can also imagine that even if you were to use some form of activity-based costing to allocate indirect hard dollar costs on a per matter basis, it would likely not change the importance of Processing and Review costs.

What does this mean for IT and legal managers in Corporations?  These kinds of analyses make it pretty clear that, even though they are more involved in the Information Management, Identification, and Collection phase of electronic discovery, IT managers need to focus more on helping the legal team optimize Processing and Review activities.  You are not going to get the biggest bang for your buck in the short-term by trying to reduce costs in Information Management, Identification, Preservation, and Collection.  Similarly, legal managers need to work more closely with IT in order to focus on how to reduce processing and review costs.

So, the obvious question coming out of such an analysis is what’s the best way to reduce Processing and Review costs?  We’ll discuss this issue in a future post.

In the meantime, tell me what you think by participating in our first e-discovery 2.0 poll.  See the sidebar here: Which Phase of Electronic Discovery Do You Think is the Most Costly?

If you have been to LegalTech before, you know that – by the end of the day – you could use a nice stiff drink to recover. So why not do it with some company? We (Aaref, Dean, Kurt, and Will) will be at the Bridges Bar at the Hilton at 7pm, and we are happy to buy drinks for the first 50 E-Discovery 2.0 readers who join us (we will have a big E-Discovery 2.0 sign on our table, so feel free to just stop by and introduce yourself). It’s a great way to meet us, suggest ideas for what we should cover on the blog, and get warmed up before going to the B-Discovery event later that evening.

Come early though. We mentioned the idea to Brandon, who runs the E-Discovery 2.0 group on LinkedIn, and he invited his group to arrive shortly after, so the seats (and the drinks!) may go fast.

Earlier today, Gartner published its eDiscovery MarketScope for 2009. Written by Debra Logan, John Bace, and Whit Andrews, it is perhaps the most comprehensive “buyers guide” available for companies interested in using electronic discovery technology to lower costs.

The eDiscovery MarketScope analyzes about 20 software companies focused on electronic data discovery. Based on extensive interviews with end customers and data from the companies themselves, Gartner rates the companies using criteria similar to those used in its famous Magic Quadrant reports. It also identifies market trends, and makes predictions for 2009 and beyond.

This report is required reading for anyone considering an investment in eDiscovery software, and I strongly recommend that you get a copy, either from Gartner or some other authorized source. To give you a flavor for Gartner’s analysis, a few of its main conclusions are as follows:

1. Bringing eDiscovery In-House Dramatically Reduces Cost

This is a claim that electronic discovery software vendors often make, and prospective customers rightly question. Gartner investigates and finds that many of its corporate clients are saving large amounts of money by using eDiscovery software to reduce the amount they spend on lawyers and legal service providers. It reports that customers typically recover their money from buying eDiscovery software within 3-6 months of implementation.

2. There’s No Single, End-To-End Solution For eDiscovery

Gartner addresses what is probably the most common question I get asked by corporate counsels and litigation support managers – namely, “Isn’t there a single product I can buy that will do end-to-end eDiscovery, covering all aspects of the EDRM?” The answer, of course, is “no” and Gartner goes further by predicting that the answer will remain “no” until at least 2011. So, for the foreseeable future, customers will need to buy best-of-breed products from different vendors for different stages of the EDRM model, and ensure they integrate smoothly.

3. There Are 4 Leading eDiscovery Software Companies

Company	Product
Clearwell	Clearwell E-Discovery Platform
FTI	Attenex, RingTail
Symantec	Discovery Accelerator
Zylab	E-Discovery Management Module

List of vendors achieving highest rating of “strong positive” (from Figure 2, page 10)

Of all the companies it analyzed, Gartner only gives 4 its highest rating of “strong positive”. Each of the four has different strengths. For processing, analysis and review, Clearwell is “fast-to-install and easy-to-use” (page 12) , while FTI’s ability to offer Attenex / RingTail either hosted or on-premise “positions it well for the future” (page 13) . Symantec’s leadership in email archiving makes Discovery Accelerator a good option for its customers who need to search and export data from Enterprise Vault. Finally, Zylab is well-known within law-enforcement circles and has a strong presence in Europe and Asia.

4. There Will Be Consolidation In The Next 12 Months

As the market matures, Gartner predicts that as many as 25% of eDiscovery software providers will either merge, be acquired, or exit the business. Access Data’s ambitious bid for Guidance has publicly put Guidance in play. Beyond that, Gartner suggests that Kazeon and several other players are all likely acquisition targets for larger companies wishing to enter the eDiscovery space.

Of course, Gartner is not the only influential voice in eDiscovery. Earlier this year, George Socha and Tom Gelbmann published their Socha-Gelbmann Survey, which also provides a valuable perspective on the market. How do the two reports compare? That will be the subject of my next post.

There have been several recent press releases from enterprise software companies proclaiming FRCP “compliance,” which certainly sounds appealing.  But, the use of that term begs the question:  how does a litigation support software search technology (or methodology) become FRCP “compliant” and is that goal even possible?

IBM launched the first salvo:

“The software will allow companies to move from scattered, point-solution approaches to a disciplined approach that controls electronic information, helps support Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) compliance,…”

Learn more about ediscovery software.

And, Autonomy quickly followed suit:

“The Autonomy pan-enterprise search platform automates the retrieval, processing, and management of all information throughout a global organization irrespective of languages, operating systems, and file types, avoiding non-FRCP compliant search techniques.”

I’m more than tolerant of both puffery and marketing-speak (though woe to those who forward such releases to Monica Bay), but this notion of “FRCP compliance” seems to take advantage of an already bombarded buying public, who have likely grown weary of FRCP articles, CLEs, and maybe even blogs posts.  Nevertheless, it seems useful to really tease out what the FRCP means and does not mean in relationship to e-discovery and enterprise search.

So, in an attempt to debunk this “compliance” myth, I thought I’d devote this blog post to demystifying some of the inaccurate notions about the frcp electronic discovery.

Federal First

Initially, it’s important to note that the Rules only apply to litigation within the United States Federal court system.  State court litigation, international lawsuits, arbitrations and administrative actions (just to name a few) aren’t under the aegis of the Rules.  While it’s true that certain state courts (Minnesota for example) have selectively adopted the new discovery provisions, most have not.  So, the first step is to check your venue.  Then, assuming the Rules do apply because your organization is in Federal litigation, the impact, while still not crystal clear, does take on more definition.

Relevancy Filters

As a starting place, the discovery process (as part of litigation) is fundamentally limited by Rule 26 to information (electronic and otherwise) that is “relevant” to the case at hand (i.e., “relevant to the claim or defense of any party”).  This distinction is critical because for the most part it prevents the responding party from having to cast a company wide net for all data, a task envisioned by many content management systems.   Certainly, the ability of certain litigation support software systems to access all user created data is valuable when searching for relevant data, but there are many ways to skin that cat.

No Express Retention or Preservation Duties

Legions of articles proclaim that the amended Rules create wholly new duties to retain information in general, as well as infusing new duties to preserve electronic data once litigation is anticipated.  Instead however, the new Rules expressly disavow creating truly new retention or preservation duties.  While it is undoubtedly a good practice to have a retention policy, given the welter of statutes and regulations that do create retention duties, the Rules do not mandate that a company create one ahead of litigation. Read more about electronic data discovery.

What is true, however, is that the new Rules have powerful implications for preservation once litigation is likely because of the requirements to understand, negotiate and produce relevant information early in the litigation process.  Under the new Rules, it is critical to be able to identify and retain potentially relevant data once litigation is filed (or is “reasonably likely”).  And yet, the burden of placing a legal “hold” on data, while often significant, certainly can be achieved without a formal document retention/deletion policy.  Again, the litigation “trigger” is key.

“Records” Aren’t the Focus

Continuing on this theme, but in a slightly different vector, there are differing opinions about the impact that the Rules have on “business records.”  This issue is nebulous since during litigation discovery, it is easy to confuse potentially relevant data corresponding to litigation with “business records,” which are often used in two different contexts.  Initially, there is the “business records” exception to the hearsay rule, which is quite specific and affects the admissibility of evidence in court.

The second, broader definition applies to organizations as they attempt to define a records management program to meet the numerous state, local and Federal mandates.  Commonly, as part of this complex initiative, companies will create records retention programs that specifically define official “records,” unofficial “records,” “non-records,” as well as specific retention periods for certain types of records.  Once the company’s records protocol is put into place there may be some downstream nexus with the Rules, but it won’t manifest itself until Federal court litigation arises, as described above.   The most common intersection occurs when a records retention policy prescribes a deletion event that contradicts the legal “hold” requirements for a record that is likely to be relevant to litigation.

In sum, the foregoing describes the role the FRCP plays in Federal court litigation.  It should be clear that the important, yet relatively narrow, use cases do not include any general compliance mandate in the absence of specific litigation.  I think it’s important to separate myth from reality when it comes to understanding how and when the revised Rules really do come into play.  Failure to do so can create an unpleasant scenario where your organization will either under- or over-prepare for these important litigation guidelines.

Yesterday, George Socha and Tom Gelbmann published summary results for their 2008 EDD survey. George and Tom gathered self-reported data from 85 electronic data discovery service providers and 40 e-discovery litigation software companies. To help vendors resist the temptation to “exaggerate” their accomplishments, they then cross-referenced the responses against independent surveys submitted by 29 law firms and 19 corporations, and applied a healthy dose of their own good judgment. The outcome, which they will publish in-full next month, is a great snapshot of the industry, and probably the most objective ranking of e-discovery vendors that you can find.

By comparing this year’s results to the 2007 survey, you get a sense for how much has changed in the e-discovery world over the past 12 months:

Top E-Discovery Software Companies

Note: arrows show change to rankings from last year’s Socha-Gelbmann Survey

Autonomy and Clearwell move up to the Top 5, overtaking Attenex and CT Summation which slip back to the second tier. There are also 3 new names ranked 6 through 10 (Epiq, iConect and Symantec) who displace Cataphora, Doculex, ISYS, and Oracle, none of whom even make it into the top 15. In other words, 70% of the rankings have changed since last year.

If a litigation support manager were to focus only on the Top 5 in making her ediscovery software decision, she would have a choice of some very different solutions. Autonomy positions itself as a high-end (expensive) platform for corporations, while Lexis offers a comprehensive toolset for law firms. Guidance and Clearwell are complementary in that both provide best-of-breed solutions for parts of the EDRM model: Guidance is the leader in collection and preservation, while Clearwell is the leader in processing, analysis and review. Finally, FTI takes a services-based approach which centers around RingTail, its hosted review application.

Looking lower down the list, there were some other interesting results, primarily around which companies were NOT ranked. Kazeon made it into the third tier (ranked 11-15) whereas StoredIQ, its main competitor, did not. Nor did Recommind break into the rankings, despite making a major push into e-discovery from knowledge management over the past year. But the most striking absentees are PSS Systems and Exterro, which have pioneered litigation hold management for Fortune 100 companies. I can only guess that they cover too much of niche market to warrant inclusion in an industry-wide report.

Top E-Discovery Service Providers

In contrast to the world of software, e-discovery services saw much less movement in this year’s rankings:

Note: arrows show change to rankings from last year’s Socha-Gelbmann Survey

There was only one change to the top 5: Fios moved up, displacing Guidance which plummeted 10-20 places down to a 16-25 ranking. In addition, there were two new players in the top 10, Epiq and Huron, who edged out Electronic Evidence Discovery and Ernst & Young.

Conclusion

Changes to the software rankings reflect broader changes in the litigation software market. As litigation discovery has moved in-house, corporations have become a major driver of purchase decisions that were previously left to law firms. Many software companies, such as Attenex, have struggled to make this transition, while others, such as Clearwell, have capitalized on it. There has been no such change in the service provider world and, as a result, the rankings are relatively stable.

It will be interesting to see what happens next year. Every other software space is dominated by a small number of players, like Oracle for databases or VMWare for virtualization. If the same is true for top ediscovery, then we can expect many fewer changes to the software rankings in future surveys as the leaders pull away from the pack.

Learn More On Litigation Support Software & Frcp Electronic Discovery.