e-discovery 2.0

The New Year has now dawned and with it, the certainty that 2012 will bring new developments to the world of eDiscovery.  Last month, we spotlighted some eDiscovery trends for 2012 that we feel certain will occur in the near term.  To understand how these trends will play out, it is instructive to review some of the top eDiscovery cases from 2011.  These decisions provide a roadmap of best practices that the courts promulgated last year.  They also spotlight the expectations that courts will likely have for organizations in 2012 and beyond.

Issuing a Timely and Comprehensive Litigation Hold

Case: E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. Kolon Industries (E.D. Va. July 21, 2011)

Summary: The court issued a stiff rebuke against defendant Kolon Industries for failing to issue a timely and proper litigation hold.  That rebuke came in the form of an instruction to the jury that Kolon executives and employees destroyed key evidence after the company’s preservation duty was triggered.  The jury responded by returning a stunning $919 million verdict for DuPont.

The spoliation at issue occurred when several Kolon executives and employees deleted thousands emails and other records relevant to DuPont’s trade secret claims.  The court laid the blame for this destruction on the company’s attorneys and executives, reasoning they could have prevented the spoliation through an effective litigation hold process.  At issue were three hold notices circulated to the key players and data sources.  The notices were all deficient in some manner.  They were either too limited in their distribution, ineffective since they were prepared in English for Korean-speaking employees, or too late to prevent or otherwise ameliorate the spoliation.

The Lessons for 2012: The DuPont case underscores the importance of issuing a timely and comprehensive litigation hold notice.  As DuPont teaches, organizations should identify what key players and data sources may have relevant information.  A comprehensive notice should then be prepared to communicate the precise hold instructions in an intelligible fashion.  Finally, the hold should be circulated immediately to prevent data loss.

Organizations should also consider deploying the latest technologies to help effectuate this process.  This includes an eDiscovery platform that enables automated legal hold acknowledgements.  Such technology will allow custodians to be promptly and properly apprised of litigation and thereby retain information that might otherwise have been discarded.

Another Must-Read Case: Haraburda v. Arcelor Mittal U.S.A., Inc. (D. Ind. June 28, 2011)

Suspending Document Retention Policies

Case: Viramontes v. U.S. Bancorp (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2011)

Summary: The defendant bank defeated a sanctions motion because it modified aspects of its email retention policy once it was aware litigation was reasonably foreseeable.  The bank implemented a retention policy that kept emails for 90 days, after which the emails were overwritten and destroyed.  The bank also promulgated a course of action whereby the retention policy would be promptly suspended on the occurrence of litigation or other triggering event.  This way, the bank could establish the reasonableness of its policy in litigation.  Because the bank followed that procedure in good faith, it was protected from court sanctions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(e) “safe harbor.”

The Lesson for 2012: As Viramontes shows, an organization can be prepared for eDiscovery disputes by timely suspending aspects of its document retention policies.  By modifying retention policies when so required, an organization can develop a defensible retention procedure and be protected from court sanctions under Rule 37(e).

Coupling those procedures with archiving software will only enhance an organization’s eDiscovery preparations.  Effective archiving software will have a litigation hold mechanism, which enables an organization to suspend automated retention rules.  This will better ensure that data subject to a preservation duty is actually retained.

Another Must-Read Case: Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

Managing the Document Collection Process

Case: Northington v. H & M International (N.D.Ill. Jan. 12, 2011)

Summary: The court issued an adverse inference jury instruction against a company that destroyed relevant emails and other data.  The spoliation occurred in large part because legal and IT were not involved in the collection process.  For example, counsel was not actively engaged in the critical steps of preservation, identification or collection of electronically stored information (ESI).  Nor was IT brought into the picture until 15 months after the preservation duty was triggered. By that time, rank and file employees – some of whom were accused by the plaintiff of harassment – stepped into this vacuum and conducted the collection process without meaningful oversight.  Predictably, key documents were never found and the court had little choice but to promise to inform the jury that the company destroyed evidence.

The Lesson for 2012: An organization does not have to suffer the same fate as the company in the Northington case.  It can take charge of its data during litigation through cooperative governance between legal and IT.  After issuing a timely and effective litigation hold, legal should typically involve IT in the collection process.  Legal should rely on IT to help identify all data sources – servers, systems and custodians – that likely contain relevant information.  IT will also be instrumental in preserving and collecting that data for subsequent review and analysis by legal.  By working together in a top-down fashion, organizations can better ensure that their eDiscovery process is defensible and not fatally flawed.

Another Must-Read Case: Green v. Blitz U.S.A., Inc. (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2011)

Using Proportionality to Dictate the Scope of Permissible Discovery

Case: DCG Systems v. Checkpoint Technologies (N.D. Ca. Nov. 2, 2011)

The court adopted the new Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases recently promulgated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  The model order incorporates principles of proportionality to reduce the production of email in patent litigation.  In adopting the order, the court explained that email productions should be scaled back since email is infrequently introduced as evidence at trial.  As a result, email production requests will be restricted to five search terms and may only span a defined set of five custodians.  Furthermore, email discovery in DCG Systems will wait until after the parties complete discovery on the “core documentation” concerning the patent, the accused product and prior art.

The Lesson for 2012: Courts seem to be slowly moving toward a system that incorporates proportionality as the touchstone for eDiscovery.  This is occurring beyond the field of patent litigation, as evidenced by other recent cases.  Even the State of Utah has gotten in on the act, revising its version of Rule 26 to require that all discovery meet the standards of proportionality.  While there are undoubtedly deviations from this trend (e.g., Pippins v. KPMG (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2011)), the clear lesson is that discovery should comply with the cost cutting mandate of Federal Rule 1.

Another Must-Read Case: Omni Laboratories Inc. v. Eden Energy Ltd [2011] EWHC 2169 (TCC) (29 July 2011)

Leveraging eDiscovery Technologies for Search and Review

Case: Oracle America v. Google (N.D. Ca. Oct. 20, 2011)

The court ordered Google to produce an email that it previously withheld on attorney client privilege grounds.  While the email’s focus on business negotiations vitiated Google’s claim of privilege, that claim was also undermined by Google’s production of eight earlier drafts of the email.  The drafts were produced because they did not contain addressees or the heading “attorney client privilege,” which the sender later inserted into the final email draft.  Because those details were absent from the earlier drafts, Google’s “electronic scanning mechanisms did not catch those drafts before production.”

The Lesson for 2012: Organizations need to leverage next generation, robust technology to support the document production process in discovery.  Tools such as email analytical software, which can isolate drafts and offer to remove them from production, are needed to address complex production issues.  Other technological capabilities, such as Near Duplicate Identification, can also help identify draft materials and marry them up with finals that have been marked as privileged.  Last but not least, technology assisted review has the potential of enabling one lawyer to efficiently complete the work that previously took thousands of hours.  Finding the budget and doing the research to obtain the right tools for the enterprise should be a priority for organizations in 2012.

Another Must-Read Case: J-M Manufacturing v. McDermott, Will & Emery (CA Super. Jun. 2, 2011)

Conclusion

There were any number of other significant cases from 2011 that could have made this list.  We invite you to share your favorites in the comments section or contact us directly with your feedback.

For more on the cases discussed above, watch this video:

The legal battles during the discovery phase of the Oracle v. Google Java licensing and patent infringement complaint are now well documented. Just search for “Lindholm email” and you’ll find pages and pages of opinions and blog posts on the case. Why so much fuss over a piece of email? Well, as Judge Alsup aptly describes, this is the type of smoking gun email that has the potential to “turn the case on its head.”  More importantly, this inadvertent email never needed to happen, if the parties had better leveraged existing eDiscovery technologies.

The eDiscovery battle over admissibility of this email, as well as whether it can be a public record, is natural and to be expected, especially in such a high profile dispute. Google has already made five attempts to either claw back these documents or protect them under seal. Besides the question of whether privilege waiver is in fact granted simply by adding an “Attorney Work Product” annotation to email, which Judge Alsup has eloquently addressed in the filing here, there is another interesting question to be considered. In addition to the two email copies that had the above designation, there were nine other sequential drafts, created within a five minute period. These drafts were generated by the “auto save” capability of the email software, possibly as a way to prevent the author of the email from losing partial work. Don’t we all love that feature, since despite all the technological advances computers crash, networks fail, and software freezes, and in those times we’re thankful that our work was indeed automatically saved? However, if these are indeed present, are these drafts discoverable, especially if they have not been shared with anyone?

Although in this instance the intent of these drafts is made evident by the final email, which included the recipients, none of the nine drafts of the email have a TO:, CC: or BCC: address field filled in. So technically, the drafts in their “pre-final” form were never communicated to anyone else. If so, should they even be considered electronically stored information (ESI) that needs to be produced? Let’s say that these emails were never sent and merely existed as drafts, perhaps capturing a person’s train of thought. Are they discoverable?

Of course, determining whether such partial and non-evidentiary ESI exists among your millions and millions of documents to be examined for production becomes increasingly the purview of powerful search and analysis software. In this instance, Google and their legal team would have been well-served by email analytical software that can isolate drafts and offer them for removal from production. Also, using a capability such as Near Duplicate Identification would have identified these drafts as similar to the final ones that were marked as privileged. After all, if the legal team had known of their existence prior to production, they would not have been surprised by the opposing team producing them as key documents.

I invite your comments, especially on the notion that partially completed drafts are admissible as evidence.

A famous quote from intellectual George Santayana provides an appropriate backdrop for organizations to better understand why they should deploy technology to strengthen their litigation response effort.  As Santayana explained in The Life of Reason: Reason in Common Sense, “[t]hose who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

The “past” can be a powerful playbook in the game of eDiscovery.  Fortunately for organizations, the lessons of eDiscovery history abound.  Indeed, the decisions that courts issue every day across the United States and in other countries provide substantial guidance on what organizations should and should not do to properly prepare for the discovery phase of litigation.

One of the principal lessons that can be gleaned from American court cases in 2011 is that technology can help organizations address the demands of eDiscovery in litigation.  Technology has assumed such a significant role because it facilitates the oversight process that lawyers must engage in to ensure that pertinent documents are preserved for discovery.  This year alone, the failure to exercise that oversight has in many instances culminated in evidence destruction and sanctions.

That message was emphasized this summer by a Virginia based federal court in a hotly contested trade secret dispute.  In E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. Kolon Industries (E.D. Va. July 21, 2011), the court determined that it would issue an adverse inference jury instruction against defendant Kolon Industries as a sanction for its evidence spoliation.  The spoliation at issue occurred when Kolon deleted emails and other records relevant to DuPont’s trade secret claims.  After being apprised of the lawsuit and then receiving multiple litigation hold notices, several Kolon executives and employees met together and identified emails and other documents that should be deleted.  The ensuing destruction was staggering.  Nearly 18,000 files and emails were deleted.  Furthermore, many of these materials went right to the heart of DuPont’s claim that key aspects of its Kevlar© formula were allegedly misappropriated to improve Kolon’s competing product line.

Surprisingly, however, the court did not finger the Kolon employees as the principal culprits for spoliation.  Instead, the court laid the blame on Kolon’s attorneys and executives, reasoning they could have prevented the destruction of information through better oversight.  The hold process was particularly flawed.  The notices were either too limited in their distribution, ineffective since they were prepared in English for Korean-speaking employees, or too late to prevent or otherwise alleviate the spoliation.  Given the logistical challenges of implementing a hold in this instance, perhaps only the automated functions of technology such as archiving software might have strengthened the oversight process and obviated the spoliation that took place.

The lack of attorney oversight also factored into another pertinent sanctions order this year, this time from a federal court in Chicago.  In Northington v. H & M International (N.D.Ill. Jan. 12, 2011), the court issued an adverse inference jury instruction against a company that destroyed relevant emails and other data.  The spoliation occurred in large part because the company neglected to establish a global litigation response effort.  For example, there was no process for issuing or ensuring compliance with a litigation hold.  Nor was counsel engaged in the critical steps of preservation, identification or collection of electronically stored information (ESI).  Into this vacuum stepped rank and file employees – some of whom were accused by the plaintiff of harassment – who were tasked with identifying and collecting discoverable emails from their workstations.  Predictably, key documents were never found and the court had little choice but to promise to inform the jury that the company destroyed evidence.

The problems associated with the lack of oversight in DuPont and Northington are compelling reasons why organizations should consider using technology tools as part of their overall litigation response strategy.  One of the most helpful tools in this regard is archiving software.  Indeed, having the right archiving solution in place might have preserved the spoliated records in these actions.

For example, archiving software can be programmed to prevent employees from deleting emails and other electronically stored information.  By ingesting data into a central repository and leaving copies of the materials on local computers, employees could have access to their archived records.  They would not, however, be able to delete those documents from the software archive.  In addition, a litigation hold could have been placed on archived data to prevent automated retention rules from overwriting information.  Either of these features might have prevented much of the spoliation – and the resulting sanctions – that occurred in both the DuPont and Northington cases.

The automated functions of archiving technology can benefit a company’s litigation response in other ways.  For example, such a tool may limit the amount of potentially relevant information available for follow-on litigation.  Absent a legal hold, retention rules that are programmed into the software will ensure that ESI is expired once it reaches the end of a designated period.  In DuPont, such a feature could arguably have eliminated entire categories of older documents before a duty to preserve those materials ever ripened.  This facet not only has the potential to reduce legal exposure, but also the attendant costs associated with reviewing those documents in litigation.

DuPont, Northington and other cases from the recent past delineate the steps companies can take to address the challenges of eDiscovery.  Organizations do not have to “repeat” past mistakes that victimized clients and counsel alike.  Instead, they can implement the right technology tools as part of a thoughtful, proactive approach to litigation.  By so doing, organizations will avoid Santayana’s judgment by “remembering” the lessons of eDiscovery history.

I’ve been doing this long enough that predictions about the future (for good or ill) seem to be a useful convention to talk about emerging trends in the electronic discovery space.  My recent post about the top 5 trends for the upcoming year received way more attention than I would’ve imagined.  So, in attempt to replicate that and do my best Carnac impersonation, here are a few predictions about ALM’s 2011 Legaltech New York:

• “All in one” e-discovery will be the vendor message de jure, even if the beginning phase is first pass review and the last phase is granular review.  The mantra “don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story” (not surprisingly) holds more water at LTNY than in most places.
• For the first time, it will actually take longer to get to your room in the Hilton (never mind the annoying ads) than it would at another hotel across the street.
• At least one person will have an Inception moment and think that they’re having a dream (or perhaps a dream within a dream – if they’re really sedated) about being on the Legaltech show floor, while they’re really still in their hotel room, waiting for their Starbucks Trenta (a whopping 30 ounces) to kick in.
• The b-discovery group will hold a massive all chapter party without any official affiliation with the LTNY conference, showing again that the off-the-floor meetings, parties, sessions, interviews and the like are continuing to eclipse the officially sanctioned events.  As another prime example, check out these stellar Supersessions.
• Members of the European Cockpit Association (yes there really is one) will accidentally show up for day one of the conference, after getting a pamphlet at LaGuardia airport advertising free wine and cheese with a discussion of ECA.
• DTI will announce that it’s stepping up and acquiring FTI (since the acronyms are pretty similar) after a torrent of other purchases in the space, including Unlimited Discovery and Daticon/EED.
• Given his prominence in NYC, I think it’s likely that Donald Trump makes an appearance (probably to look for a lit support professional as an all new Apprentice: the e-discovery edition).

If you’re anything like Dr. Evil, Tears for Fears, or Napoleon, ruling the world is at or near the top of your to-do list, and part of ruling the world is having as omniscient a knowledge as possible of what’s going on, in order to better control it. Ruling the world has also long been the dream of many software vendors, who want to own and understand all the information in an enterprise in order to, um, provide maximum value to their customers… oh, and also to lock them in to a single underlying platform that allows them to control as much of the organization’s information management decisions as possible.

In some cases, these dual interests are aligned. However, in e-discovery, it’s not so clear. Over the last couple of years, many vendors have pushed a notion of “index everything” or so-called “proactive” e-discovery, in which you have instant access to all the information in your enterprise, in real-time, from which to drive your e-discovery process. But is this feasible? Or even desirable?

The Myth of the Silver Bullet

It can be tempting for IT to turn to an enterprise search solution that can index all data sources – laptops, desktops, file servers, SharePoint servers, databases, email archives, content management systems – and enable e-discovery across the entire enterprise in an instant. The reality is that while such a solution may work for enterprise search in small and medium-sized companies with a finite scope of data, the level of complexity in scale and defensibility of operations makes this simply not an achievable approach for e-discovery at most large enterprises. As Anne Kershaw and Joe Howie of the Electronic Discovery Institute noted in their just-published Judges’ Guide to Cost-Effective E-Discovery:

“There is no single silver bullet that solves all problems associated with escalating discovery costs and delays. As noted above, the single most effective cost reduction method is the focused collection of records most likely to contain relevant information. Some argue that e‐discovery is best accomplished by taking large amounts of data from clients and then applying keyword or other searches or filters. While, in some rare cases, this method might be the only option, it is also apt to be the most expensive. In fact, keyword searching against large volumes of data to find relevant information is a challenging, costly, and imperfect process. A much better approach is to ask key client contacts to help you locate core relevant information and then, by reading that information, determine other sources of relevant information.”

What are the specific reasons why a targeted collection approach is superior? From our conversations with clients as we have been developing our solution to this problem over the last couple of years, three major drawbacks to the index-everything approach stand out.

1. Impact to Existing IT Environment

While the collect-and-preserve approach employed by Clearwell is widely accepted for e-discovery, index-everything and preserve-in-place solutions have recently emerged, originating from other enterprise applications such as knowledge management and enterprise search. These approaches from other domains have significant disadvantages when applied to e-discovery, including impact to existing IT infrastructure and processes that result in increased cost and complexity. For instance, the scope of e-discovery can exceed the amount of information being indexed by knowledge management or enterprise search applications. According to Forrester, the majority of enterprise search implementations range in size from the hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of records, not billions of documents that are potentially discoverable during litigation. Consequently, index-everything solutions must index a much larger volume of data across a broader range of applications and data stores than would typically be necessarily for enterprise search.

Indexing such a large amount of data has implications for the entire IT environment. These solutions either crawl data repositories over the network or employ agents on local desktops and laptops to find new and modified files. IT organizations using these solutions report experiencing disruptions including:

• Requiring read access and permissions to numerous line-of-business applications and storage systems where data resides

• Significant increases to disk I/O for enterprise applications, network file shares, and client machines

• Increased network consumption as large amounts of data are read over the network

• Increased consumption of local hard drive space on employee desktops and laptops for search indexes and redundant copies of preserved files

• Scheduling resource-intensive indexing tasks during off-peak hours, impacting the ability of IT departments to complete backups during shrinking backup windows

Taken together, these issues add cost and complexity to the deployment of index-everything and preserve-in-place solutions. This often results in organizations not fully deploying the solution after purchasing licenses and spending months or years trying to integrate with their existing systems.

2. Risk of Missing Critical Data

Another key concern of organizations seeking to meet e-discovery requests is the ability to find all relevant files and documents for a case. Missing even a few important documents may result in multimillion dollar fines and sanctions. UBS and Morgan Stanley each paid $29.2 million and $12.5 million, respectively, for losing key files during litigation. It is therefore critically important that e-discovery solutions have the ability to not only index and search common file types, but also a range of less common but equally important files such as those within nested container files, encrypted files, and TIFF images containing text. Solutions that originate from applications outside the e-discovery domain often skip these files because 100% accuracy is not required for other applications such as enterprise search. Across organizations with billions of documents, there may be hundreds of thousands of potentially relevant files which are in the dark and unknown to legal teams because they are not indexed.

Index corruption is another commonly reported issue with index-everything solutions that results in incomplete search results. Search indexes are susceptible to data corruption just like any other computer file, but the large size of indexes containing billions of records increases the probability of errors. In fact, this is a common problem of most archive solutions and other solutions that manage billions of records. A corrupt search index will result in incomplete results or in the worst case scenario, the inability to conduct searches until the index is repaired. In some situations, data must be re-indexed to rebuild a corrupt search index which is time consuming due to the slow speed of some solutions.

The net result isthat in-place solutions increase the likelihood of missing critical data, exposing the organization to considerable legal and financial risk.

3. Time Delays and Uncertainty in Searches

When embarking on a project to make all enterprise data searchable for e-discovery, an important consideration is indexing speed in relation to total outstanding data and projected data growth. Organizations deploying such a solution typically have a large amount of existing data that needs to be indexed, and this index must be continually updated as data is modified and new data is created. Many companies report that although vendors claim high processing rates, these high rates erode over time as companies index greater amounts of their existing data, increasing the size of search indexes. Beyond an application’s ability to index data, there are exogenous factors affecting indexing performance including network speed, disk I/O, and latency. Along with index size and the number of search indexes, these factors can also affect search query performance, resulting in searches that take hours or days to return results.

Another issue facing organizations deploying index-everything solutions is that end users may be creating and modifying documents faster than the solution can index them. As a result, there is a widening gap between the state of data in the wild and the solution’s picture of that data, leading to incomplete search results. Equally troubling, search results may include files that were moved after the search engine indexed them, and so they appear in the results but cannot be viewed, retrieved, or preserved. End users clicking on the link to an item may receive an error similar to the “404 Error: File Not Found” that everyone has experienced when browsing the web. This presents a significant defensibility problem in e-discovery, and IT teams often end up tracking down these missing files one-by-one to ensure they are preserved. The result is that organizations may be exposed to unnecessary legal risk while IT teams have the additional burden of manually tracking down hundreds of files for each legal matter.

A Better Approach to Collection and Preservation

Recognizing the challenges of collection and preservation, Clearwell has developed a targeted approach that enables organizations to defensibly collect and preserve data without increasing the work of IT or exposing the organization to risk. Targeted collection provides an easy way for IT or Legal teams to collect from all critical data sources and securely manage collected data in a preservation store for the duration of a case. Unlike index-everything and preserve-in-place approaches, Clearwell is up and running quickly, delivering value in hours or days without the cost and complexity of lengthy multi-month deployment timelines. In addition, Clearwell’s targeted collect-and-preserve approach has a number of benefits over in-place approaches:

Minimal impact to IT infrastructure: Clearwell only collects potentially relevant data from custodians involved in a case or investigation, targeting resources at the most important data instead of wasting resources on indexing all data across the entire organization. As a result, targeted collection requires less impact to existing applications and storage systems, does not cause significant increases to disk I/O or network consumption, and does not require agents to be installed on client machines or servers.

Finds all critical data: Purpose-built to support the complex and difficult to read file types required by e-discovery, Clearwell can index and search all critical content such as nested container files, encrypted files, images containing text, and hidden content.

Up-to-date collection: Clearwell collects all relevant data for e-discovery by targeting information that is related to custodians in the case. Because this approach is not limited by legacy indexing approaches, Clearwell is able to collect data that has been recently modified or moved.

Maintains existing workflow: With Clearwell, end users are able to continue using their existing workflows and business processes without interruption. Using targeted collection, Clearwell can collect data in the background without altering data where it resides. When users create or modify files in the normal course of business, Clearwell incrementally collects new data automatically.

Reduces risk: Targeted collection significantly reduces the risk of spoliation by retaining data in a secure preservation store, providing a defensible process that maintains chain of custody. As a result, data cannot be tampered with by end users or accidently lost on laptops, desktops, or other data repositories not under the control of IT.

Collecting and preserving evidence are critical steps in the e-discovery process. Solutions that promote indexing everything as the optimal solution for your e-discovery problems might be conceptually promising, but create new challenges for IT and increase risk in practice. As a result, organizations are seeking a solution that enables them to respond effectively to e-discovery without causing major disruptions or exposing the organization to additional risk. Clearwell’s targeted approach solves the challenges of collection and preservation by making it easy to collect data from all critical data sources and preserve data defensibly, without incurring greater risk or disrupting the organization’s business processes.

What’s next in the electronic discovery world?  Well, it’s nearly impossible to say with too much precision, but my recent e-discovery trends article attempts to peer into the crystal ball to divine some hints about the future.

The following five predictions are what I expect to create the biggest waves in e-discovery in 2011.  Most are nascent trends that we’ve seen a bit of in 2010, but that should continue to accelerate next year.  Enterprises that can prepare for and understand these areas will be well equipped to continue taking a proactive approach to the ever-changing challenges of e-discovery.

1. Changes in Forensic Best Practices: In 2011, manual forensic imaging will continue to take a backseat to more automated, forensically sound data collection techniques.  Forensic (bit for bit) images have long been the gold standard for the legally sound collection of ESI in response to legal proceedings.  And, while forensic imaging will continue to be important in a number of discrete situations (fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets cases, etc.), it will largely be seen as overkill in basic electronic discovery cases.  Since imaging is both time consuming and highly manual, automated collection tools will increasingly be used by savvy organizations to speed up and streamline the collection process.
2. Consolidation in the Electronic Discovery Industry: Consolidation in the electronic discovery sector will impact market forces and the balance of power.  The past year saw traditional, pure-play electronic discovery companies looking (sometimes successfully and sometimes not) for diversification and deep pockets.  In the upcoming year, the relative dearth of pure play EDD companies may reverse the downward price pressure that’s been seen over the past several years.
3. Proportionality Becomes Reality: Burgeoning data volumes, as seen in multi-terabyte (versus gigabyte) cases, means that the legal community will continue to search for ways to prevent electronic discovery costs from exceeding legal exposure and attorneys fees.  Groups like The Sedona Conference will continue to push for better clarification within the community surrounding “proportionality” in order to keep the electronic discovery “tail” from wagging the litigation “dog.”  If successful at all, there may be a slight respite for litigious enterprises that may be able to better scale e-discovery efforts with the risk profile of the matter at hand.
4. Collision of Cloud, Social Media and E-Discovery: The seemingly unstoppable migration of corporate data to the cloud, combined with the proliferation of social media applications, will continue to stress electronic discovery practitioners as they attempt to preserve, collect, search, and process electronically stored information (ESI) from sources that aren’t traditionally managed behind the firewall.  Proactive enterprises will increasingly evaluate the legal and compliance risks of storing data in the cloud so that they’re not painted into a corner when they need to preserve, collect, and produce offsite ESI.
5. Global E-Discovery Matures: International jurisdictions will increasingly look to the United States (and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) as their nascent electronic discovery paradigms are increasingly stressed by the proliferation of both ESI and discovery disputes.  The recent Goodale case out of the UK (and impending procedural changes to the e-Disclosure Practice Direction) demonstrates how the global community is rapidly maturing along the electronic discovery continuum.

While the tools and best practices designed to combat top ediscovery hurdles continue to mature, the challenges are multiplying at any equally fast rate.  In the past, the crux of most discovery matters usually centered around email and sometimes instant messaging.  In 2011, new problems will continue to crop up on the horizon, such as collecting SharePoint data from the cloud, trying to extract structured data from a range of proprietary systems and capturing ephemeral ESI from an ever changing array of social media applications.

Please let me know if you disagree with any of the predictions or have any others you’d like to share.

Working in the industry, I have a good sense for the annual revenue generated by most e-discovery software vendors. I do not write about it, because these companies are almost all private and prefer to keep their revenue numbers confidential. But when a private company publicly discloses its annual revenue, then the numbers are in the public domain and it’s reasonable to examine them.

That’s the situation with Recommind, which has chosen to disclose its revenue in an effort to draw attention to the company. Recommind participated in industry surveys conducted by Deloitte in 2009 and Inc Magazine in 2010, revealing its revenue for the years 2006, 2008, and 2009. The company then spoke to the451 Group, which published a report on August 25, 2010, stating: “[Recommind] predicts 60-90% overall growth for the year – potentially topping even 2008′s 70% growth rate”. If you apply these growth rates to the previously disclosed revenue numbers, it’s simple arithmetic to calculate Recommind’s revenue in 2007, and its revenue forecast for 2010. The data is collated in the table below:

Recommind Revenue 2006-2010

(1)     Inc Magazine’s 5000 List for 2010 ranked Recommind #1334
(2)     From the451 Group: “Recommind rallies with strong growth and more hosted e-discovery traction” by Nick Patience and Katey Wood, August 25, 2010
(3)   Deloitte’s 2009 Technology Fast 500 ranks Recommind #251

I found two things striking about these numbers. First, Recommind’s business clearly hit the wall in 2009, when it grew only 2% at a time when other e-discovery software companies like Clearwell, Exterro, kCura, and others were all growing at a rapid pace. Things appear to have turned around for the company since then, and the 60-90% annual growth expected in 2010 raises it firmly to the middle-tier of industry players.

Second, it’s interesting to note how small these numbers are. From an electronic discovery software perspective, they look even smaller when you consider that Recommind’s expected $23-28 million in 2010 revenue comes from 3 different markets:

1. Enterprise search: For example, the company recently announced that it has been selected by Staples to power search on Stapleslink.com

2. Knowledge management for law firms: This accounts for the bulk of customer testimonials on its website.

3. E-Discovery: Its Axcelerate product has been adopted by a handful of enterprises and law firms for processing, early case assessment (ECA), and review.

If you divide its revenue estimate for 2010 equally across these three markets, it suggests that Recommind’s e-discovery revenue in 2010 is only $7-10 million. That’s much less than many other companies in the space.

What can we take away from all this? First off, you have to wonder if it’s a good idea to disclose this information, since it exposes the fact that Recommind is a lot smaller than many people think. More generally, it’s an interesting case study in how, by selecting the right time period and calculating high percentage growth rates off small numbers, a company can gain recognition despite its small size and erratic growth.

Learn More On Litigation Software & Litigation Support Software.

In the Southern District of New York it”s easy to get eclipsed (in the electronic discovery world at least) by the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin (of Zubulake fame). And yet, the latest case out of this district was penned by Magistrate Judge William H. Pauley and contains one of the most memorable preambles to a case that I”ve read in a while:

“Electronic discovery requires litigants to scour disparate data storage mediums and formats for potentially relevant documents. That undertaking involves dueling considerations: thoroughness and cost. This motion illustrated the perils of failing to strike the proper balance.”

In Harkabi v. Sandisk Corp., 08 Civ. 8203 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug, 23, 2010), aside from the stellar opening, Magistrate Pauley illustrates that the culpability standard for certain technology companies may actually be higher than for their low tech counterparts. The discovery dispute began after the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant Sandisk failed to produce their former laptops and corporate email. When the underlying action (for failure to pay the plaintiffs their “earn outs” after an acquisition) began to heat up the plaintiffs wisely sent Sandisk a preservation letter.

Sandisk, upon the receipt of the letter sent a “Do-Not-Destroy” memorandum as well as securing the laptops issued to plaintiffs. After some time, the laptops were imaged and the data was saved on a file server. Unfortunately, this is where things took a turn for the worse.

After plaintiffs” evaluation of Sandisk’s production, it was discovered that materials from their laptops had not been produced and neither had some of their emails. After a significant amount of wrangling and Sandisk”s “best efforts” they admitted that they couldn’t find the laptop data anywhere — finally conceding that the laptop images were lost sometime during the data transfer. Because Sandisk did not “engage this reality” they didn’t commence a search of backup tapes for some considerable time. So, although the court was confident that the omission would eventually be resolved, the event might have never been detected but for the plaintiff’s diligence and in the final analysis it still ended up costing plaintiff considerable sums ferreting out the issue.

With this as a backdrop the Magistrate began his analysis of the spoliation and delayed production issues. The plaintiffs proffered four arguments for why a culpable state of mind could be inferred:

1. A one month delay in counsel’s issuance of the legal hold memo. This argument was rejected by the court since the delay didn’t appear to cause any real harm.
2. Failure of Sandisk’s counsel to adequately supervise the legal hold process. Here, the court concluded that counsel was “notably absent at critical junctures” of the preservation process, including the copying of the laptop data.
3. Sandisk’s “expertise in electronic data storage.” Here the court appeared to hold Sandisk to a higher standard, noting that this finding “must mortify [Sandisk], a global business that champions itself a leader in electronic data storage.” The court further gilded the lily by stating that SanDisk”s “size and cutting edge technology raises an expectation of competence in maintaining its own electronic records.”
4. Sandisk”s delay in revealing that certain information had not been included in its native production. Here the court also found some lack for forthrightness during counsel’s representations about discovery completeness.

Not surprisingly, with adverse findings on three of the above arguments, the court found defendant was “at a minimum” negligent stating that the “cascade of errors” ultimately aggregated to a “significant discovery failure.”

With these findings in the record the court then went on to the sanctions analysis. Here, there wasn’t enough evidence supporting terminating sanctions, but an adverse inference instruction was appropriate since the plaintiffs had “lost access to relevant evidence.”

Turning to the delayed production, the court found that because it appeared that the emails would eventually be produced, the prejudice “is contained.” Thus, terminating sanctions were not warranted. Yet, because defendant’s misrepresentations obscured the deficiencies and “stopped discovery in its tracks” the court found that monetary sanctions in the amount of $150,000 were appropriate to compensate plaintiffs for their “‘David-and Goliath-like” struggle for electronic discovery.”

Many of these errors are fairly typical of the types of e discovery disputes seen today. However, this case does seem to highlight the raised bar for any company that should “know better” when it comes to electronic discovery issues. Here, Sandisk certainly isn’t an e-discovery company per se, but their expertise in ESI storage certainly made it difficult to claim ignorance. This raised bar was seen in spades when Guidance Software was recently accused of gross negligence and e-discovery bad faith during an employment dispute. In combination with the Sandisk case, it’s not surprising to see the standard of care elevated for folks who should really know better. So, for anyone in the e-discovery (or tangentially related) industry, it’s probably a good idea to become even more diligent when responding to electronic discovery requests.

Yesterday, Clearwell announced a new module for identification and collection, which is available with Version 6 of its e-discovery platform. This sits alongside the existing modules for processing/analysis and review/production, extending Clearwell’s capabilities upstream to a part of the e-discovery process typically done by IT. The new module has already been purchased by GlaxoSmithKline, Nisource, and several other enterprises and government agencies, and the initial response has been incredibly positive. I wanted to say a few words about what led Clearwell to add the Identification and Collection Module, and how it’s different from other solutions.

Over the past few years, I have seen a transformation of the e-discovery software market. Previously, there were no specific people within corporations or government agencies dedicated to e discovery, and no formal budget was allocated to it. As a result, purchase decisions were typically made at the departmental level by legal or information security people who could “find the money” by borrowing from other projects. In stark contrast to that, today most major corporations have people specifically responsible for electronic discovery, and many of them have company-wide initiatives to lower costs by bringing e-discovery in-house. Companies are issuing more and more formal RFPs; performing proof-of-concepts as part of the evaluation process; and creating committees of both legal and IT to make purchase decisions.

Some vendors have sought to play up a “gap” between legal and IT teams when it comes to e-discovery. They manufacture survey information claiming that collaboration and communication between legal and IT is decreasing. Our experience has been exactly the opposite. At corporations like Coca Cola, Home Depot, and hundreds of others, we find close, collaborative relationships between legal teams and the IT professionals dedicated to help them. There’s now a new career path, sometimes called “legal IT” or “e-discovery manager”, for technically savvy IT folks who understand legal’s requirements. I was happy to see at LegalTech this year that legal professionals would often come by our booth with a colleague and say to us, “I brought my IT guy with me because I want him to see this”.

It is precisely because legal and IT are working so closely together that they want a single product to manage all their e-discovery activity. That’s what led us to add the Identification and Collection Module.

Why is offering a single product for everything from identification through production such a big deal? Clearwell’s approach offers two main advantages over alternative solutions. First, like earlier versions of Clearwell, the Identification and Collection Module is very easy to use – so much so that, with IT’s permission, legal could even manage the collection process itself. For example, existing products like Guidance Encase require users to write scripts to create filters for targeted collections; with Clearwell, everything is point-and-click through a simple web UI. That makes identification and collection accessible to non-technical users.

Second, because identification, collection, processing, early case assessment, review and production can now all be done using a single product, Clearwell is able to provide end-to-end reporting through the entire e-discovery life-cycle. For example, Autonomy’s disparate e-discovery products (Introspect, Aungate, etc.) require multiple log-ins, all have different UIs, and different data models. With Clearwell, all of these are the same, giving you complete control over your data – at significantly lower total cost of ownership.

You can sign up for a product demonstration or even evaluate the product for free. Take a look – and leave a comment to let us know what you think.

Learn More On Litigation Software & Litigation Support Software.

Learn More On Ediscovery Litigation.

Last month at the Annual Conference of the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA), we saw an interesting trend – more and more law firms are asking how they can use e-discovery technology to provide greater value for clients. ILTA’s Law2020 initiative identifies the factors driving the shift in law firm priorities from reactive e-discovery at any cost to proactive measures designed to maximize value for clients. Ultimately, the client is going to have to drive innovation, and the client has certainly spoken in 2010.

I wanted to share my thoughts on how I believe the law firm of the future can benefit from promoting electronic discovery expertise to its clients as well as how becoming the trusted advisor in this area can lead to greater sustainability for the firm and lower client attrition rates.  I found the most recent issue of ILTA’s Peer to Peer magazine (“Law2020”, Issue 2 Volume 26, June 2010) fascinating, and the articles echoed much of what I am seeing in the legal marketplace today.  A handful of forward-thinking firms are embracing alternative fee agreements (AFAs) and promoting technology and efficiency to their clients in an attempt to both reduce the cost of the legal services being provided but also improve the overall experience for the client.  In an ancient profession, we are seeing the first widespread demand from clients for better customer service and accountability.  Clients are shopping multiple firms, and the hooks that firms had in many of their clients are disappearing as more and more corporations bring legal services, such as e-discovery, in house.  As one might say, the legal marketplace has become a “buyers’ market.”  As Richard Susskind predicts, we may see the legal services provided by law firms become more of a commodity in the coming decade.

Traditionally, law firms have not provided services beyond traditional representation, and although many law firms now have in house litigation support or legal technology departments, the services they provide from these departments are limited.  These departments often become a cost center rather than a profit center, and clients are demanding greater efficiency – to the point where law firms are seeking outside help from vendors to manage large electronic discovery projects.  This may not change much in the coming years, but there is a wonderful opportunity for law firms to enhance the services they are providing through these departments and become trusted advisors to their clients in the areas of electronic discovery, legal technology, and information management.  Given this opportunity, why are firms allowing outside consultants to collect all of the fees associated with advising their clients in this area?  Perhaps it is due to a lack of true project management expertise within the firm that prevents the firm from providing these services, or perhaps the firm believes that clients will not pay for proactive legal services.  Whatever the reason, firms are allowing a potential revenue opportunity and excellent client relationship opportunity to slip away.

Sustainability

In an interview in Peer to Peer, Darryl Cross said, “[Law Firms] must learn more about their clients and what they need in order to proactively serve them, because our studies show that once you cross the third or fourth practice group there’s almost no risk of the attrition of a client – it plummets to below 10 percent.”  In today’s legal marketplace, firms would do well to find ways to engage the client at multiple levels, and across multiple practice groups or partners.  One way they can do this is by becoming the trusted advisor for all things related to e-discovery – including early case assessments, culling and review techniques, proactive litigation readiness, , and assisting with vendor relations as clients bring more technology and processes in-house.  This will not only build trust with the client, but it will make processes more defensible and reduce the risk of error because everyone involved is familiar with the process.  Because e-discovery touches many practice areas, the opportunity to engage clients on these issues would be numerous.  Firms might even do well to appoint a partner who manages these proactive relationships with clients and seeks out opportunities to better serve the client through an extended offering of value-added services.  Centralizing this function would likely lead to better use of resources and uniformity across engagements, driving down costs.

Strategic Partnerships

Flash forward to 2020 for a moment, and imagine, if you will, a video conference (conference rooms are soooo last decade…) where a law firm’s client relationship partner is explaining to a client that by implementing various technology solutions, the client can achieve dramatically lower costs in litigation, and, after an explanation by the partner, a technology vendor presents a solution custom-tailored for the client. During the presentation, the partner and the client ask questions to ensure that the solution meets all of their needs and will be both defensible and efficient.  In 2020, perhaps all firms will be doing this; in 2010, though, today’s law firm can benefit tremendously by getting involved in this process and advising clients on the multitude of options with regard to technology.  For example, there are many deployment options available for most enterprise-class e-discovery solutions, and the firm can help the client decide which of these options would best suit their needs.  At the end of the day, the client will not seek out technology because they are fed up with paying too much to law firms; they will partner with a law firm to proactively reduce costs.  This type of arrangement and consulting service could even be the catalyst to begin talks about AFAs and really begin learning what the client really wants or needs.  Many times I have found that simply being heard goes a long way toward building long-lasting relationships.

Conclusion

As ILTA’s Law 2020 initiative kicked off at the annual conference last month, we should all be thinking of ways in which we can build more effective relationships with clients and how the law firm of the future will continue to achieve sustainability.  Those of us who are lawyers have an opportunity to become counselors again, and in today’s marketplace, streamlining costs is just as important as minimizing risk.  Those of us who are e-discovery or litigation support practitioners have a unique opportunity to maximize our value and increase our revenue generation through consulting services.  Achieving maximum sustainability and reducing or eliminating client attrition begins with finding ways to build lasting relationships with clients by addressing their broader needs – beyond the matter at hand.  By becoming the trusted advisor in areas that span multiple practice groups, the law firm of the future can stop looking like a commodity and begin to look again like an indispensable resource.

Learn More On Litigation Software & Litigation Support Software.

Learn More On Ediscovery Litigation.