e-discovery 2.0

Much of the business and personal productivity that comes in the digital world  is from email and its unique abilities. Email allows us to communicate in a way that helps us associate context to our discussions, namely in its ability to be chained into a sequential thread when email users reply to or forward emails they previously received. This accomplishes two important tasks: 1) it allows the person sending the reply or forward to get an understanding of the issues so he/she can craft a meaningful response, and 2) it allows the person receiving the response to understand that response in the context of other on-going discussions. Email programs such as Microsoft Outlook, Eudora, and Gmail help by automatically including content from prior emails, thus producing a long chain of reference.

It is no coincidence that emails thus constitute key evidentiary value in the context of litigation. The inherent value captured in emails is what makes email productions central to pre-trial disclosures and the electronic discovery that precedes it. Courts have long recognized that emails are a business record and subject to discovery. Establishing who said what in the context of a matter in dispute is greatly facilitated by examining the thread of emails recorded in email repositories. With respect to electronic discovery, however, email threading presents several unique challenges. The area of greatest confusion and uncertainty has been the determination of privilege when emails are exchanged with in-house counsel and attorneys and whether such emails are protected by attorney-client privilege or not. A central issue is the composition of privilege logs under these circumstances.

There are several legal opinions on the matter of intermingling privileged and non-privileged communications in an email chain. These opinions have left the matter with little clarity, especially regarding whether the entire email thread is privileged or whether individual emails must be separated out and classified as privileged, with a privilege log listing them. Typically, the most recent email in a thread contains all other emails in that thread. Separating out individual emails (i.e., the contained emails) from the containing email would allow for treatment of just the portions of the email thread that may have privilege. When such separation is permitted, some contained emails may be assessed as privileged while others may not. However, it is entirely possible that the contained email is also present as an independent email under possession of the same custodian or another custodian. When it is present, one could argue that the contained email can just be ignored, and if the corresponding email is responsive, one can ignore the contained email. But rarely does a collection include a complete set of custodians, so the question of whether the privilege log should include the contained item in question still remains. In terms of management of review, and for constructing a privilege log, treating the most recent email and all its contained emails as a single entity is less expensive and cleaner than separating and determining privilege status of each contained email.

Another complicating factor is simply a determination of privilege. Does the mere fact that an attorney was listed as a courtesy CC recipient make the entire email privileged? And, when such emails are then forwarded only to an attorney involved in the case, with a legal strategy discussed in the containing email, is only the new content added to the containing email privileged, or does the privilege determination extend to the other contained emails?  Let’s examine a few opinions for guidance.

With respect to privilege there is a significant body of opinions that would suggest that only communications that explicitly seek legal advice are privileged.

“With respect to internal communications involving in-house counsel, a party “must make a ‘clear showing’ that the ‘speaker’ made the communications for the express purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice”, Chevron Texaco Corp., 241 F. supp 2d) at 1076 (quoting In Re Sealed Case, 737 F.2d 94 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). If the legal and business advice are inextricably intertwined, “the legal advice must predominate over the business advice, and not be merely incidental, for the communications to be protected under attorney client privilege.” Evidently, attempts to include an incidental attorney in a thread would not offer privilege protections. However, the issue is complicated if the most recent containing email is indeed a genuine attempt to seek such guidance. Here again, there are two opinions. In United States v. Chevron Texaco Corp., 241 F. supp. 2d 1065, 1074 n.6 (N.D. Cal. 2002), we note that:

“With respect to each series of emails for which Chevron asserts protection under privilege, Chevron breaks the series into each discrete message. In our view, such a representation of the document is misleading. Each email/communication consists of the text of the sender’s message as well as all of the prior emails attached to it. Therefore, Chevron’s assertion that each separate email stands as an independent communication is inaccurate.”The above would have you prepare a single entity with the most recent containing email and all other quoted emails treated as a single unit. On the other hand, we see the opposite opinion in Universal Service Fund Telephone Billing Practices Litigation, 232 F.R.D. 669, 674 (D. Kan. 2005) where “the court strongly encourages counsel, in the preparation of future privilege logs, to list each email within a strand as a separate entry”. In a related ruling, the court notes: “Obviously, a sufficient (i.e., reasonably detailed) privilege log is vital if litigants and judges are to determine whether documents have been properly withheld from discovery.” As mentioned earlier, this can be much more expensive from a review and production standpoint.

In Chemtech Royalty Assoc., L.P. v. United States, Nos. 05-cv-00944, 06-cv-00258, 07-cv-00405, at (M.D. La. Mar. 30, 2009), we get another perspective: “Asserting privilege for an entire email thread in the privilege log, but only describing the last message in the thread is deficient.”

In Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Fresenius Med. Care Holding, Inc., No. 07-cv-01359, 2008 BL 229777 at (N.D. Cal. Oct 10, 2008), the defendants are ordered to produce a privilege log that “separately identifies the author, recipient(s), copyee(s), and blind carbon copyee(s) for each logged email communication regardless of whether the communication is part of an email string”. The court directive is: “Each email is a separate communication, for which a privilege may or may not be applicable. Defendants cannot justify aggregating authors and recipients for all emails in a string and then claiming privilege for the aggregated emails.”

Thus, the contained emails must be treated as separate privilege log entries.

In Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 501 F. Supp. 2d 789, 812 (E.D. La 2007) the court notes:

“Email threads in which attorneys are ultimately involved were usually listed on the privilege log as one message.”  Further, “Simply because technology has made it possible to physically link these separate communications (which in the past would have been separate memoranda) does not justify treating them as one communication and denying party a fair opportunity to evaluate privilege claims raised by the producing party.”

Again, the preference has been to separate out individual contained emails as independent emails with corresponding privilege log.

In C.T.  v.  Liberal School District, Nos. 06-cv-02093, 06-cv-02360, 06-cv-02359, 2007 BL 21826 at (D. Kan. May 24, 2007), the court orders the plaintiff to submit an amended privilege log that listed email in a string as a separate entry.

In Se. Pa. Transport Authority v. Caremark PCS Health, L.P., 254 F.R.D., 253, 264-65 (E.D., Pa 2008) court recommends “analyzing emails in chain separately to rule on defendant’s privilege claims”.

Another significant opinion is found in Muro v. Target Corp., 250 F.R.D. 350 (N.D. Ill. 2007). In addition to at least four motions, an in camera review  was requested for identifying the privilege status of eighty nine documents. Here, the court ruled that FRCP Rule 26(b)(5)(A)  does not require that all contained emails be separated out. However, the court sustains Target’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling that its privilege log was inadequate for failure to separately itemize each individual email quoted in an email string. In Muro, though, you are allowed to treat an entire email as a single entity only if the non-privileged communications in that chain are otherwise disclosed. Hence, if you wish to treat an email as a single unit, you are required to either disclose the individual contained emails from other custodians, or to list them as Derived Emails (see below).

Another important case is the Rhoads Industries Inc. v. Building Materials Corp. of America et al 2008, WL 5082993 (E.D. Pa Nov. 26, 2008), where the court rendered the opposite opinion:

“Each version of an email string (i.e., a forward or reply of a previous email message) must be considered a separate, unique document, and therefore each message of the string which is privileged must be separately logged in order to claim privilege in that particular document.”

Of course, the context of the Rhoades opinion is the statement: “In the world of electronic communications, a series of email messages, among people employed by the client, but working in different locations, can replace the meeting with an attorney and subsequent letter.” However, this opinion is very debatable.

An entirely different approach is suggested in Apsley v. Boeing Co., No. 05-cv-01368, 2008 BL 12035 at (D. Kan. Jan 22, 2008), with the opinion “Although Boeing listed on its privilege log entire email strings, it redacted only the portion of the string that contained legal communications.” While this seems to be a perfectly reasonable approach, wouldn’t this compromise case strategy since the very fact that certain portions of the non-privileged, unredacted emails were being exchanged with in-house counsel and is therefore part of an attorney communication can be damaging?

Suffice it to say, the courts differ in their opinions on how to handle email threads and their privileged logs. It is in this context that the Clearwell E-Discovery Platform’s treatment of email threads is extremely helpful for preparing your litigation response. In fact, Clearwell has received two patents related to email threading, one for constructing email threads and its ranking and another for determining derived emails from other containing emails and de-duplication in the context of original emails. Clearwell has advanced email meta-data and content analytics to piece together all emails of a thread. Furthermore, its Derived Email feature separates out contained emails as complete emails, which are then de-duplicated against other emails that are not derived from a contained email. In situations where such a duplicate is not identified, the derived email is maintained in a special state. Also, the containing email’s thread is separated out in such a way that each individual email’s privilege status can be determined. One can apply either a single- or multiple-record policy satisfying whatever the prevailing opinion is from the bench. Also, Clearwell’s redaction capabilities and its ability to produce the same set of documents for multiple parties allow the case team to provide a quick turnaround if there is a motion to produce either a privilege log or the non-privileged snippets of emails. Such technology can be a lifesaver when it comes to meeting electronic discovery obligations.

Yesterday, Marsh & McLennan (M&M) announced the sale of Kroll, its investigative services division which last year generated $678 million in revenue. Kroll is being acquired by Altegrity, another investigative services company which is owned by Providence Equity. The acquisition price is $1.13 billion, below the $1.3 billion M&M was rumored to be asking, and the deal is financed by Apollo Investment Services and Goldman Sachs.

There are many aspects to this transaction, but I want to focus on just one: what does this mean for Kroll Ontrack, Kroll’s largest division with $250 million in revenue and a staggering 1,500 employees, making it by far the world’s largest e-discovery service provider?

To answer this question, I will first outline the strategic challenge facing Kroll Ontrack, before outlining two alternative strategies its new owners may adopt for addressing it.

Strategic Challenge: Kroll Ontrack Is The “Yahoo! Of E-Discovery”

Just as Yahoo was an internet pioneer in the 1990s, Kroll Ontrack was the pioneer of electronic discovery services. Like all pioneers, as the first to market, Kroll had to build everything itself. So Kroll Ontrack invested not only in recruiting and training its staff of skilled consultants, the company also developed its own suite of e-discovery tools and software. It offered this integrated package of services and software to the market and, justifiably, charged a price premium.

But as the industry matured, it disaggregated with more savvy customers and new companies focused on specific parts of the value chain. Customers became better educated and more confident making decisions, diminishing the value of Kroll’s “we-are-the-safe-choice” value proposition. These customers today have many more options for e-discovery than was the case in years gone by, primarily because of a generation of e-discovery software companies, such as Clearwell, Guidance, Exterro, and kCura/Relativity, which offer capabilities like collection, ECA (Early Case Assessment), litigation hold management, and linear review. These have been widely adopted by Kroll Ontrack’s competitors, negating Kroll’s technological advantage. Even worse, because Kroll Ontrack’s competitors do not need to invest in R&D, they have a substantially lower cost structure. As a result, they have undercut Kroll Ontrack on price, which has halted its growth and squeezed its margins.

In a directly analogous way, Yahoo! has seen its broad internet service to consumers eroded by a host of more focused competitors such as Google, Facebook, and Skype. Consumers today are much more familiar with the internet, and feel comfortable making separate choices for search, social networking, and messaging, without the need for an umbrella brand. That has left Yahoo! without a reason for being: even today, its CEO struggles to answer the fundamental question “what is Yahoo!?”

Solution: Sell It Or Fix It

As Kroll Ontrack’s new owner, Altegrity has a simple choice. It could sell Kroll Ontrack, making the strategic challenge someone else’s problem; or Altegrity could fix it, by adopting a fundamentally different strategy.

Let’s consider each in turn:

Sell It: Most sensible people would find it funny to think about selling something right after you bought it. But in this case, it could make a lot of sense. Altegrity is a leading provider of investigative services, not e-discovery, making the “non-Ontrack” part of Kroll’s business a much better fit. So why not sell Kroll Ontrack, pay down debt, and focus on the services business which it understands? This would be especially attractive if, as Vivian Tero at IDC suggests, there are willing buyers such as ECM or storage software companies which like Kroll Ontrack but do not want the services business.

Fix It: Mike Cherkasky, Altegrity’s CEO, is a former head of Kroll, and so is perhaps uniquely well placed to bring about a change in direction. To do so, he must decide what Kroll Ontrack wants to be. If its goal is to be the leading e-discovery service provider, then it should kill its internal software development efforts and focus on providing customers the absolute best service using industry leading tools. If it wants to be an e-discovery software company, which would be a much harder transition, then it needs to exit the services business and make its technology available every litigation support company.

Either way, it will take time and a lot of painful decisions for Kroll Ontrack to recover its momentum. But if any encouragement is needed, the Altegrity and the Kroll Ontrack teams need only look at what’s happening to Fios, another of the industry’s early pioneers. So far, Fios has refused to decide what it wants to be, abandoning its internal review platform for Relativity but keeping its proprietary processing software. The result? It’s had three different CEOs in the past 12 months, and competitors continue to steal market share.

Earlier this month, Gartner published its third annual MarketScope For E-Discovery Product Vendors. Written by Debra Logan, Whit Andrews, and John Bace, the report is an excellent survey of this rapidly evolving market. It is also a useful buyer’s guide for anyone considering a purchase of electronic discovery software, since it analyzes and rates various e-discovery players. You can buy the report at Gartner’s site, or access a complimentary copy here.

The report covers 18 e-discovery software vendors. Missing from the report are e-discovery hosted/software-as-a-service (SaaS) providers and small e-discovery software vendors. Gartner believes the market is maturing and only larger companies are viable in the long run. So it increased the minimum annual revenue requirement for inclusion in the report to $15 million.

My guess is that next year Gartner will discontinue the MarketScope and move instead to a Magic Quadrant for e-discovery software. Doing so would be very helpful for the entire industry. Now that George Socha and Tom Gelbmann no longer publish their annual rankings, Gartner’s report is the only way for people to get a sense for how different products compare against each other. That alone makes it required reading for anyone considering an investment in e-discovery software.

One of the more surprising aspects of the recession (at least to me) is the immediate and dramatic impact it has had on litigation support service providers. On one side of the coin, you have large players like SPi, which in 2007 was Attenex’s largest reseller, exiting the business altogether, and several other service providers in obvious difficulty. On the other side, I see a handful of service providers gaining share and attracting new investors. In the past month alone, I have spoken to a handful of investor groups who are either investing or looking to invest in litigation support service providers.

From what I can tell, there seem to be 3 factors that are causing problems for the industry:

1. The credit crunch:

Many service providers rely on “lines of credit” to fund day-to-day operations, meaning they pay their bills by taking debt secured against receivables and other assets. But in the last few months, that’s become much harder to do. Nowadays, banks do not want to give lines of credit to anyone, even if you pay them a higher interest rate. All the banks care about is reducing risk and strengthening their own balance sheets. So it has become harder for service providers to finance their businesses in this way.

2. Paper business is shrinking:

Many service providers started life as copy/scanning operations before expanding to include electronic information, and some still rely on the paper business as a steady source of cash. I have been told by several people in the business that demand for paper-services has fallen dramatically in the past few months. Their stories reminded me of what’s happening in the newspaper business: everyone knows that newspaper and magazine subscriptions are decreasing over time, but it’s happening much faster than anyone thought it would. As a result, it seems that service providers are getting less cash from the paper business than they expected – right at the time when banks are least interested in letting them borrow more to make up the difference.

3. Electronic data discovery is growing more competitive:

In the early days of electronic discovery, companies had little choice but to send out their data to the handful of service providers who had the processing, review and hosting facilities to manage it. Today, data volumes are much larger, making it a bigger market, but there are also lot more options: companies can use software to manage electronic discovery in-house; they can send it to a law firm, many of whom now have internal litigation support teams; or they can choose between larger numbers of service providers offering a much wider array of services.

Given these challenges, how is it that some service providers are able to grow and gain share, while others stumble? From my discussions with many firms – some doing well, others not – I see several common steps that the strongest players are taking to adapt to today’s harsher economic climate. These steps include:

• Strengthen the balance sheet, by raising money from equity investors and/or restructuring debt obligations. This provides more operating flexibility and reduces the risk of tripping over bank covenants.

• Sell or shutter the paper business. Just like making CDs is a distraction to the music business, paper is takes time and energy away from electronic discovery. Shutting down paper operations frees bandwidth and resources to concentrate on the growth part of the business.

• Innovate in service offerings. It is not enough to offer processing, review and hosting like everyone else. The best service providers have become trusted advisors by bringing their clients compelling new services, like for example early case analysis.

• Focus, focus, focus. In a big, competitive industry like litigation support, service providers have to find their niche. This can be a specific geography or an industry. But for the larger, national players it is typically a handful of key services which they get everyone (sales, marketing, project management, etc.) lined up behind selling and delivering.

Compared to many sectors of the economy (e.g., retail, travel, luxury goods), the litigation support services industry is well-positioned to grow through the downturn. But there’s no doubt things have changed, and many of the strategies appropriate in 2007 no longer apply in 2009.

Yesterday, George Socha and Tom Gelbmann published summary results for their 2008 EDD survey. George and Tom gathered self-reported data from 85 e-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 e-discovery 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 e-discovery, then we can expect many fewer changes to the software rankings in future surveys as the leaders pull away from the pack.

Most science fiction visions of the distant future seem to contain a rather singular fear: that the human race will be taken over by computers.  Think “Terminator” series, preferably without the naked Arnold Schwarzenegger visual.  Regardless of whether this vision fills you with trepidation or excitement there is a very real possibility that we’re on the cusp of computers taking over a significant e-discovery task for attorneys.

For past several decades, attorneys have had to use litigation software to manually review information for relevancy and privilege in response to the e-discovery process.  Quoting from Information Inflation: Can the Legal System Adapt? by George Paul and Jason Baron, this task has always been viewed as sacrosanct “because of ‘death penalty’ waiver doctrine that evolved long ago when information was still manageable.”

Like so many industries, the legal profession has attempted to grapple with the transformation that the digital revolution has brought to the forefront.  The latest revisions to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) is the most obvious case in point.  And yet, electronically stored information (ESI) is proving difficult to fit into traditional, even remodeled, paradigms.  Even ignoring (for the moment) the proliferation of novel data types (i.e., blog content, voice over IP or VOIP, webmail, text messaging, web services, etc.) the amount of data that attorneys are being required to review during litigation discovery has reached a tipping point of review feasibility.

Back in the day, information was viewed in terms banker boxes of information, and even in the most document intensive discovery matters this measuring stick belied the belief that armies of attorneys could conceivably conquer the massive document review problem.  But now, we often see clients that process routine matters containing terabytes of information.  Most of us in the electronic data discovery space have become numbed to the abstract nomenclature of megabytes, gigabytes, terabytesⁱ, petabytesⁱⁱ, and in the process we may have failed to realize that we have moved well beyond the scale of information that can be reasonably attacked with even the largest armada of contract attorneys (assuming that the client could conceivably bear the astronomical costs).

“At the petabyte scale, information is not a matter of simple three- and four-dimensional taxonomy and order but of dimensionally agnostic statistics. It calls for an entirely different approach, one that requires us to lose the tether of data as something that can be visualized in its totality. It forces us to view data mathematically first and establish a context for it later.”ⁱⁱⁱ

I’m certainly not the first to point out that this tipping point is coming, but now we are really starting to see early adopters respond to this sea change. In their linked article above, George Paul and Jason Baron state “It is no exaggeration to say that litigation, as we have known it, is threatened by information’s new hyper-flow. The amount of electronically stored information relevant to a case is already a stress point in litigation.  […]  Litigators can no longer depend on manual review alone….”

Up until now, attorneys and the clients that are footing the litigation discovery bill have had to make a Hobson’s choice:  either “force parties to continue hugely expensive privilege reviews, or to forego the attorney-client privilege or work-product privilege altogether.”   But, now it appears that another way is evolving.

The following lays out a scenario where a non-manual review methodology may make sense.  ***Please note: this approach is not without risk.  At this moment in time neither clawback provisions, the potential adoption of Evidence Rule 502 nor any other know prophylactic measure can completely insulate a producing party from the unforeseen consequences of an inadvertent disclosure.  But, as they say, desperate times call for desperate measures….

Step one: Evaluate the Environment

The following factors represent some of the elements that should be taken into consideration prior to skipping the normal, human based review steps that are seen in most e-discovery matters.

1. Large data set.  This may sound a bit obvious, but a non-manual approach is best suited for large, unwieldy data sets.  The corpus doesn’t need to be in the terabytes, but the data set should be evaluated in term of discovery processing costs and attorney review estimates.
2. Short Production Timelines.  Once the above calculations are conducted, the next step is to determine if a human based review could even conceivably be conducted in the given time frame.  In many instances, an eyes-on review process just won’t be feasible since there won’t be enough bodies to throw at the problem.
3. Next Gen “PAR” Tools.  In order to pull this “review-less” review process off, both safely and quickly, the responding party needs to have access to fast, robust processing, analysis and review (“PAR”) tools.  Certainly, it’s possible to have this scenario work with an e-discovery service provider, if they have the capability.
4. Relatively Small Amount in Controversy.  For the time being, this approach should not be considered for any “bet the company” litigation, nor anything with significant downside risk (governmental inquiries, punitive damages, class actions, 2nd requests, etc.).  Yet, for many standard commercial lawsuits, corporate investigations, HR claims, etc. this review-less approach may be worth considering.
5. Ability to Use a Clawback Provision.  Entering into a clawback provision with the opposition is mandatory in this methodology since the chances of an inadvertent production are statistically ever-present.  Yet, until Evidence Rule 502 is resolved, there will always be a risk that the clawback won’t be enforceable against 3rd parties.
6. Non-governmental Production.  Most information in governmental productions becomes part of the public record, meaning that a clawback isn’t going to be feasible.  Here, trade secret information, personally identifiably data and the like would be disastrous if pushed out into the public domain.

Step two: Perform a Risk/Benefit Analysis

Next, take all the above factors into consideration and determine if the risks (of inadvertent production, the clawback being ineffective, etc.) are worth the benefits (reduced costs, lower attorney review fees, ability to meet deadlines, etc.).

Sure this is hard work, but the alternative (manual review) is more ephemeral than realistic.

[In my next post, I’ll address the tactical steps to conduct a review-less review process.  Stay tuned……]

ⁱ One terabyte is generally estimated to contain 75 million pages and could conceivably cost $18,750,000 to review.  Anne Kershaw, Automated Document Review Proves Its Reliability, 5 DIGITAL DISCOVERY & E-EVIDENCE 11 (2005).

ⁱⁱ According to Wired, we’re now in the “Petabyte Age” where that amount of data is processed by Google’s servers every 72 minutes.

ⁱⁱⁱ Wired article, above.

Hello from Los Angeles, where the weather’s fine and summer’s in full swing! Accordingly, a few of us in the legal technology community spent the night before LegalTech enjoying a Dodger’s game hosted by LTN editor-in-chief and rabid Yankees fan Monica Bay (outfitted in full Yankee regalia for the occasion). So as to not incur Monica’s wrath, I left my Red Sox cap at home.

At the game, I happened to sit next to a colleague from another vendor who mentioned that her firm is about to celebrate twenty years in e-discovery.

Twenty years! What a remarkable milestone for any company. It got me wondering about how much technology has evolved over that time period, and raised an interesting question to noodle over between innings: With all of the investment and innovation in the e-discovery space, who’s actually winning the electronic data discovery tug of war, twenty years in?

What is the e-discovery tug of war, you ask? Let’s start with the scene in 1988.

On one side, the documents: They stared at you from across the mud puddle — hundreds or even thousands of boxes stacked one of top of another, hauled out from a warehouse where they’d spent their days, against their will, in windowless solitude, ready for battle. They were ticked.

And on the other side, you: With your new IBM PS/2 Model 80 (the best money could buy: 640×480 VGA color screen, 16mhz 386 processor, 80MB hard drive), flatbed scanner, and some new DOS-based database program called “Concordance.” To add insult to injury, Starbucks hadn’t even really gone national yet, so you were probably stuck with a jar of instant coffee to try to stay awake.

You didn’t stand a chance.

From then until now, two different dynamics have played against each other, pulling the flag back and forth over the dividing line:

1. On one side, the explosive growth of electronic documents has been truly mind-boggling. From a baseline of close to zero in 1988 (WordPerfect 5.1 wasn’t introduced until 1989), today essentially every single business document is created, transmitted, and stored electronically.
2. On the other side, technology innovators in the e-discovery space have used creativity and a large dose of Moore’s Law to store, process, and search electronic documents with ever-increasing speed and efficiency.

During the seventh inning stretch, with the Dodgers holding a commanding lead over the White Sox, I thought: Maybe technology is about to win.

Here’s the argument: Assuming that the creation of document content will still largely be human-driven, now that most every legally significant class of communication is being created and managed on-line, growth of e-discovery-relevant data volumes may quickly move from being exponential (when everything was “going digital”) to a rate driven more by productivity improvements and economic growth. Improvements in processing, search, and analysis of documents, however, will continue to improve at a Moore’s Law pace for the foreseeable future, presumably making it fairly trivial for advanced e-discovery technologies to outmuscle their longtime adversary.

Google shows some evidence of this victory of technology over data. Remember that just a few years back, search engines frequently trumpeted how much of the Internet they were able to index – and it was far from the whole thing. Today, that’s largely a solved problem. It’s simply amazing how quickly Google’s index ingests new data, often in what seems like a matter of minutes. In fact, I dare say that by the time you read this post, you’ll be able to perform a Google search on some of its content and have it come up front-and-center in your search results. Amazing.

What does this mean for electronic data discovery? The best e-discovery technologies will change to solve challenges that are far more strategic in nature. Instead of focusing on how fast and effectively they can process documents, or how quickly they can allow attorneys to review them, they’ll provide powerful capabilities for addressing some of the most important e-discovery problems that inside and outside counsel face, such as:

• How do I craft robust, defensible search strategies for my cases while minimizing e-discovery costs?
• How can I standardize a repeatable, high-quality discovery process that’s executed consistently across my organization?
• How can my organization become more proactive in identifying potential legal risks and liabilities based on our company’s “legal history”?

I’m sure you can come up with a number of others. What do you think – is the war against documents over, and electronic data discovery ready to move to a new phase? Or are there still many more battles to be fought?

The recent announcement of $18 million in financing for PSS Systems got me thinking about preservation.  PSS is a provider of enterprise-class preservation and litigation hold management systems with solutions starting in, from what I can tell, six figures.  Nevertheless, this begs the question, why would a Fortune 500 company need such an expensive enterprise class software application to manage legal holds?

So, let’s start from the top…

With the advent of e-discovery during the last decade an entirely new class of evidence spoliation came into existence – i.e., situations where electronically stored information (ESI), particularly back-up tapes, could inadvertently become overwritten, lost, erased, etc.  In the good old days of paper-based discovery, there was certainly an opportunity for spoliation, but paper documents didn’t routinely become lost or otherwise unavailable, unless in extreme instances of intentional spoliation.  For a particularly comprehensive tome on this type of negligent spoliation, please see this excellent piece written by Judge Scheindlin (of Zubulake fame).

Accordingly, in the past several years litigators have had to learn and then re-learn the notion that the duty to preserve ESI begins once litigation is “reasonably likely.”  Unfortunately, this duty to preserve is fraught with a number of practical challenges, including:

• When is the duty triggered?  For example, the duty is in most instances certainly in place prior to a complaint being actually served.  But, as you move upstream from that crystalline moment reasonable minds certainly can differ about when litigation is “reasonably likely.”  EEOC claims, in the HR context, are a good example of potentially early trigger points.
• Then, assuming that the duty is triggered what must then be preserved?  Is it just the ubiquitous email?  Or, as is more likely, will an increasingly broad and voluminous set of ESI be implicated, such as loose files, instant messaging, blog posts (maybe this one?), mobile or PDA/handheld data, deleted but forensically recoverable files, etc.?

Those two thorny problems aren’t the only issues that counsel needs to deal with when they embark upon issuing a legal “hold” – the decree that instructs custodians of their obligation to preserve all relevant information related to the matter at hand.  But, the duty to preserve is only the start of the challenge.  This is where folks like PSS come in, meaning that they manage the potentially complex logistical tasks associated with hold notification, monitoring, and compliance.

Here’s where I start to have a problems with large scale, complex preservation efforts.  Let’s take a somewhat common example:  a multi-national enterprise is sued for misappropriation of trade secrets.  Even prior to the complaint being filed, plaintiff’s counsel issued a demand letter, which in some cases could be held as a triggering event.  But, in either case, once the complaint hits the GC’s desk the duty to preserve is clearly in force.   Let’s then say that in consultation with outside counsel they wisely embark on a set of interviews to determine the scope of departments/locations/custodians that may be reasonably implicated.  Then, following the synthesis of this information they issue a legal hold notice to 2,500 people located throughout numerous domestic and international offices.

Now, here’s where the risk comes in…   One thing is statistically certain with that number of custodians: the legal hold will not be followed to perfection.  If I were more mathematically inclined I’d say it could be reduced to a formula along these lines:

Legal hold compliance *decreases* exponentially as you multiply:

• The number of custodians
• The length of time the legal hold is in effect
• The types and volumes of potential ESI that may be relevant
• The presence of individuals who don’t want data to be preserved due to their own perceived errors/foibles/omissions

The answer, in my mind, doesn’t lie in a better mouse trap to manage the vagaries of the legal hold process.  No, the best way to take the risk out of the legal hold process is to move very rapidly from preservation to collection.

Once ESI is collected two main things start to happen:

1. Subjective notions about the universe of data (allegedly) covered by the preservation process can be changed into objective observations that the custodians really are the right ones.  For example, in the above example the 2,500 custodian list is again almost certainly not correct.  Since the decision process was made subjectively (likely without insight into the data) the custodian list is inherently either under or over-inclusive.  However, with the advent of early case assessment solutions, the preserving party can now quickly collect and assess an initial corpus of data to ensure that exactly the right folks are in the collection/preservation process.
2. Once the ESI is collected, the risk of loss, deletion, etc. will largely have been taken out of the equation meaning that the danger of spoliation is greatly reduced.

My belief is that the larger the preservation effort the more likely there will be gaps that the opposition can use as leverage.  Scaling up the preservation effort is only one way to skin the cat.  Instead, the better practice is to start small, collect quickly, and then expand collection efforts once your legal team has objective insights into the case data.

Yes, preservation is still important. But, biting off more that you can chew simply means a statistically greater chance of failure.

I knew the rumors about FTI’s acquisition of Attenex were true when we received a call in early May. It was from a large Attenex partner, who said: “We need to switch out Attenex no later than the end of June.” There have been many similar calls since then; as one service provider told us the other day, “I cannot imagine any Attenex partner not looking for other alternatives.”

The reason is obvious: Attenex Advantage partners – such as BDO Seidman, Deloitte & Touche, DiscoverReady, DTI Global Document Technologies, Forensic Consulting Solutions, Navigant Consulting, SPI Litigation Direct, VMAX Consulting and 10-15 others – compete directly with FTI. If they must now rely on FTI for their Attenex technology, it puts them at a massive disadvantage when competing for business. FTI could easily undercut them on price, since it no longer pays usage fees to Attenex; or, FTI could promise additional features in the Attenex product that its competition cannot match. It could certainly claim to be the world’s greatest Attenex experts (after all, who knows Attenex better than Attenex itself?). Perhaps worst of all, every time an Attenex Advantage partner works on a client using the Attenex product, it has to inform FTI at the end of the month so that it may be invoiced for usage, thus enabling FTI to track its client engagements.

Yes, FTI will likely make all sorts of promises about “Chinese Walls” and continuing to support other Attenex Advantage partners. But those promises are impossible to enforce (ask the editor of the Wall Street Journal!), and FTI could change its mind at any time, leaving service providers which depend on Attenex in the lurch. I don’t know anyone who would take that risk.

So the single greatest impact of the FTI-Attenex deal is that every other “Attenex Dis-Advantaged” partner needs to find an alternative e-discovery solution – and fast!

A second impact can be surmised from the market’s reaction to the deal. As the chart shows, FTI’s stock immediately popped 10%, adding about $300 million to its market capitalization. Partly, that’s because FTI negotiated such a great deal. It purchased Attenex for only 3.5x revenue, in a transaction that is neutral/accretive to earnings. Partly, it’s because FTI has a great track record with software acquisitions. For example, it acquired RingTail (a hosted review platform) in 2005 for $34 million, and today RingTail generates over 3 times that amount in revenue. Personally speaking, I have always been impressed by FTI’s team which is without doubt among the best in the business.

The interesting thing in this acquisition, unlike many others, is that the value will not come from selling the acquired product, since FTI is doing that already. In fact, FTI has been selling Attenex for years, and has even integrated it with RingTail. Rather, my guess is that FTI will use Attenex to grow its consulting business in several ways, such as:

1. By convincing clients to switch consulting firms, not technology. Let’s take a hypothetical example and say Ford is presently using Attenex through LECG. If LECG now uses a different electronic data discovery solution, then Ford is left with a choice: keep LECG and lose Attenex, or change from LECG to FTI and keep Attenex. Ford’s decision will, of course, be driven by many factors, and it will be interesting to see what happens in scenarios like this.
2. By winning a greater share of e-discovery dollars. Today, companies primarily engage FTI on life-threatening issues: stock option investigations, merger 2nd requests from the DoJ/FTC, and so on. By leveraging Attenex’s brand, FTI might extend that to also cover everyday e-discovery issues like run-of-the-mill litigation and regulatory inquiries.
3. By building an e-discovery footprint behind the enterprise firewall. Attenex has struggled to sell its product for on-premise deployment at enterprise customers in the past. Its website has no customer logos and I’m only aware of a couple of installations, neither of which is publicly reference-able. FTI’s strong consulting business might help change that and make it easier for enterprises to adopt Attenex.

I am sure there are other ways for FTI to get value from the deal that I am not smart enough to think of. My point is that, given FTI’s leadership talent and the scope of its consulting engagements, there are lots of things FTI could do with Attenex to create shareholder value far in excess of the acquisition price. That’s why I believe the second impact of the deal is that it will have a positive impact on FTI’s core business.

Assuming that you can buy each company for the same price, which would you acquire?

Company A has been in business 3 years, has 25 customers, no brand to speak of, and did about $5 million in revenue in the prior year; or,

Company B has been in business 7 years, has over 100 customers, a strong brand in its market, and is doing $25 million in annual revenue?

“No brainer,” you say, “obviously, Company B.” So it is that FTI looks to have got a great deal buying Attenex (Company B) today for $88 million, whereas Seagate looks like it grossly overpaid for Metalincs (Company A) which it bought for $82 million in December 2007. But things are not always as they appear, and there are good reasons why litigation support software company Attenex has sold for a paltry 3.5x revenue, a multiple well below the 16x commanded by Metalincs or even the 5x revenue that Iron Mountain paid for Stratify.

Three forces reduced Attenex’s acquisition price. The first is that FTI accounted for a large proportion of Attenex’s revenue. That gave FTI leverage over Attenex since it could say, “sell to us for $88 million, or we will take our business elsewhere, your revenue will plummet, and the value of your business will be greatly reduced.” This power that FTI had over Attenex made it the only logical acquirer, so there could be no pressure from other bidders to raise the purchase price.

The second force depressing Attenex’s valuation is that its revenue will likely decline post acquisition as Attenex’s partners (who compete with FTI) switch from Attenex to other solutions. Software investors value growth above all else – and are willing to pay up for it. For example, Bladelogic, an unprofitable software company, went public last year at a $500 million valuation with less trailing revenue than Attenex. But it did $62 million in revenue the following year (Bladelogic sold to BMC Software for $800 million in April 2008). Attenex, by contrast, will see declining revenue in the next 12 months.

Finally, acquirers worried that, since Attenex’s revenue comes almost entirely from its hosted offering via service providers, its revenue was more volatile than enterprise-oriented e-discovery software companies. This is due to the fact that customers (typically, law firms) purchase Attenex-powered services on a case-by-case basis and can switch away at any time. Enterprises, in contrast, purchase long-term software contracts that will not vary based on short-term changes in case volume.

Once these factors are taken into account, the price and the multiple start to look a lot better. Attenex’s founders, who are some of the pioneers of the e-discovery industry, get some well-earned liquidity; the venture investors make a decent return; and, employees get to join a professionally-run company that compensates its people well. My congratulations to the Attenex team, and to FTI which has negotiated a great deal.

Of course, all this says nothing about the deal’s impact on the broader e-discovery market. That will be the subject of my next post.