e-discovery 2.0

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.

In my last post I announced that discussions are taking place that could change the way preservation and sanctions issues are handled within the federal court system.  The next round of discussions about possible amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) is scheduled to take place on September 9th in Dallas, Texas as part of a “mini-conference” led by the Discovery Subcommittee – a committee appointed by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules.  This post discusses three different rule amendment approaches that attendees have been asked to consider in order to help them prepare for the mini-conference.  A complete list of attendees, preparation materials, and questions the group will consider are included in the Advisory Committee’s June 29, 2011 memorandum to the participants.

The debate about whether or not rule amendments are even required is far from over.  A 452-page document located on the U.S. Courts’ website chronicles many of the meetings, notes, and submissions driving the current discussion.  Page 265 of the document contains a memorandum prepared by the Civil Rules Advisory Committee earlier this year, stating that:

“the Subcommittee has reached no conclusion on whether rule amendments would be a productive way of dealing with preservation/sanctions concerns, much less what amendment proposals would be useful.”

Despite concerns that amending the current rules now would amount to jumping the gun, there is an undeniable desire for more clarity around when the duty to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) is triggered, what must be preserved, and when the duty expires.  This momentum has resulted in the crafting of draft proposals that are likely to help frame the discussion on September 9th. The “proposals” are really draft approaches that have been broken down into three general categories described in the Civil Rules Advisory Committee’s memorandum, titled: “PRESERVATION/SANCTIONS ISSUES” (see page 263).  The Category 1 approach can best be described as providing a higher degree of specificity than the other approaches.  For example, the Category 1 approach provides a fairly detailed explanation of the duty to preserve evidence (Rule 26.1(a)) and details possible triggers (26.1(b)), the scope of the duty to preserve (26.1(c)), and sanctions (Rule 37).  Category 2 proposes a more general preservation rule, while Category 3 only addresses sanctions as a tool for influencing behavior.  The three categories are discussed in more detail below.

Category 1: Specific Rule

This draft includes many different exemplary lists, alternative approaches, and footnotes that highlight the fact that one of the key challenges with drafting a specific rule is trying to foresee all of the challenges that might lie in the road ahead.  For example, the draft rule provides a long list of events that could trigger the duty to preserve evidence, including everything from serving a pleading to taking “any other action” in anticipation of litigation.   The rule also provides a list of information types that are “presumptively excluded” from the preservation duty, such as deleted data on hard drives, temporary internet files, and physically damaged media.

The lists are helpful in that they provide guidance.  However, each list also includes a “catch-all” provision to address scenarios that might not be foreseeable.  The inclusion of catch-all provisions highlights the inherent challenge of providing more clarity and certainty without creating rules that are so inflexible that they are difficult to apply to unforeseen factual scenarios or technological developments.  Some might argue that trying to provide a laundry list of examples will make passage of new rules difficult because each item on the list will stir debate.  Others contend that the lists add little value because the catch-all provisions will still require litigators to pass the sniff test of “reasonableness.”

Despite the inherent challenges related to drafting rules with specificity, most practitioners would likely support the inclusion of lists or examples that provide at least some direction.  What is likely to be far more controversial with respect to Category 1 is the use of alternative language proposing fixed limits around custodians and litigation holds.  For example, one alternative would limit data preservation requirements to a fixed number of custodians and the duty to preserve evidence would similarly expire after a fixed number of years.  Bright line rules like these may be easier to understand, but they also tend to be controversial since they lack the flexibility necessary to fairly address every conceivable situation.

Category 2: General Rule

Like the Category 1 proposal, the Category 2 proposal uses lists and outlines several alternative approaches throughout the rule.  However, the Category 2 proposal fundamentally differs from Category 1 by outlining a more general approach.  For example, one of the alternatives essentially states that the duty to preserve evidence is triggered whenever a “reasonable person” would expect to be a party to an action.  Similarly, the ongoing duty to preserve information after the duty has been triggered would be evaluated based on what is described as a “reasonable period” under the circumstances.

The beauty of this more general approach lies in its simplicity and flexibility.  The idea is that evaluating conduct based on the “reasonableness” of a person’s actions is much easier than attempting to draft bright line legal guidelines that account for every possible factual scenario.  The flip side is that reasonable minds could differ and results could be inconsistent if there are no bright line rules.  What this means in the context of the federal rule discussion is that one judge might find a party’s conduct with respect to data preservation efforts reasonable, while another judge might issue sanctions based on the same set of facts.  In large part, it is this lack of certainty and guidance in the current rules that sparked the current debate in the first place.

Category 3: Sanctions-Based Rule

Unlike the first two categories, the Category 3 approach focuses only on sanctions and would act like more of a “back-end” rule.  In other words, the rule would not contain any specific directives about preservation, but it would provide direction in the areas of when and how sanctions might be applied.

Despite the draconian image a “sanctions” based rule might conjure up, the Category 3 rule may seem surprisingly lenient to some.  For example, absent extraordinary circumstances, the court would be prohibited from imposing any of the sanctions listed in Rule 37(b)(2) or from giving an adverse-inference instruction unless:

“the party’s failure to preserve discoverable information was willful or in bad faith and caused [substantial] prejudice in the litigation.”

The sanctions based approach would almost certainly have an impact on how parties handle upstream preservation related issues.  However, the key ingredients that will impact what kind of behavior this rule drives are the severity of the threatened sanction as well as the applicable standard.  For example, a party facing severe sanctions for conduct that is either negligent, willful or in bad faith is likely to take their preservation obligations seriously.  On the other hand, if the realm of possible sanctions is trivial, parties are less likely to take their preservation related obligations seriously.

Conclusion

The three rule approaches represent very early attempts at framing possible approaches to amending the FRCP.  If the Discovery Subcommittee chooses to recommend rule amendments following the September 9th mini-conference in Dallas, the proposed language is likely to be closer to final form and easier to assess than the current proposals.  I will continue to monitor the rule making discussion and provide commentary in future posts.  Stay tuned for my next post where former US Magistrate Judge Ron Hedges explains why he thinks the rule changes are unnecessary and why the current proposals might run afoul of the Rules Enabling Act.

eDiscovery best practices, particularly practical ones, are hard to come by.  That’s why the Pilot Program of the 7th Circuit has been such a novel (and successful) undertaking.  As part of this program, judges, outside counsel and industry experts collaborated to practically deal with the many vexing eDiscovery challenges in the courtroom. By way of background, the 7th Circuit Electronic Discovery Pilot Program Committee was formed in May 2009 and was chartered to conduct a multi-year, multi-phase project to develop, implement, evaluate, and improve pretrial litigation procedures, which ideally would provide fairness and justice to all parties, while seeking to reduce the cost and burden of electronic discovery consistent with Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).

The Committee, comprised of the most talented experts in the 7th Circuit, as well as experts in relevant fields of technology, promulgated “Principles Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information” (“Principles”) and a Proposed Standing Order by which participating judges could implement the Principles in the Pilot Program’s test cases.  Practicing lawyers wrote the Principles under the guidance of federal judges in Chicago, with the end result being a consensus from experts in the field of eDiscovery rather than a prescriptive approach dictated by the courts.  The Committee now has 80 members, including members from all 7 federal districts in the 7th Circuit and around the country, and is chaired by Chief Judge Holderman and Magistrate Judge Nolan of the Northern District of Illinois. The Principles provide a checklist of important considerations for the initial meet and confer conference, as well as even-handed rules regarding preserving and producing electronically stored information (ESI) that provide more granularity to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The 7th Circuit has been well-received, and evangelists are jumping on board in other Circuits, including the 9th Circuit.  Art Gollwitzer, a member of the 7th Circuit eDiscovery Pilot Program Committee, practices patent law, was key in the formation of the Principles notably the Preservation Principle 2.04, and now heads the National Outreach Committee for the 7th Circuit Program.  In a recent case, Joao Control & Monitoring Systems of California, LLC v. ACTI Corp., et al., Case No. SA CV10-1909-DOC, in the Central District of California, Art was pleasantly surprised to see language that he helped write in a draft ESI order handed out by the court to the parties for their consideration at the initial status conference.  “I was very happy to see the exact language that our committee drafted after many hours of discussion in the summer of 2009 in the court’s proposed order,” Art explained.  “We worked hard to reduce the cost and burden of electronic discovery and to prevent ESI discovery from turning into a game of ‘gotcha’.”

The goal of the National Outreach Committee is to spread the word about the 7th Circuit’s ESI Program and its benefits.  “We envision spreading the word through articles, speeches, and ‘grass-roots’ or word-of-mouth efforts,” says Gollwitzer. To that end, liaisons in each Circuit or even each district can talk to judges and encourage colleagues to propose that courts adopt the Committee’s principles in Rule 26(f) orders on a case-by-case basis.  “We also can describe the program and its principles at local bar associations and Inns of Court,” he explains.  “Finally, we can volunteer for local rules committees or comment on ESI proposals for local rules.”

With each jurisdiction having its own local rules and each legal community having its own flavor, the exercise of bringing all stakeholders into the process to contribute to the Principles is unprecedented.  Whether each Circuit starts their own Pilot Programs, or initially adopts the 7th Circuit’s Principles and then modifies as necessary, remains to be seen.  Either way, results from the 7th Circuit have been positive thus far, generating supporters nationally.  The hope is that courts and practitioners will start with these Principles in order to avoid a patchwork of ESI rules across the country.

The general consensus of the participating judges in Phase I of the Pilot Program was that the Principles were having a positive effect both on counsel’s cooperation with opposing counsel, and on counsel’s knowledge of procedures to be followed when addressing electronic discovery issues. The judges felt that the involvement of eDiscovery liaisons required by Principle 2.02 contributed to a more efficient and cost effective discovery process. Many of the participating lawyers reported little impact on their cases, presumably mostly because of the limited 6-month duration of Phase I. Those lawyers who did see an effect from the application of the Principles in their cases overwhelmingly reported that the effect was positive in terms of promoting fairness, fostering more amicable dispute resolution, and facilitating their advocacy on behalf of their clients. The Committee intends to present its Final Report on the 2-year Phase II evaluation at the 7th Circuit Bar Association Meeting in May 2012.

While most attorneys are following the guidance of Principle 2.01 (a) and (c), Duty to Meet and Confer on Discovery and to Identify Disputes for Early Resolution, it is barely the majority.  And curiously, a significant minority of attorneys acknowledged they had not familiarized themselves with their client’s information systems or had early discussions with their opponents about ESI preservation issues even though they were applicable in the case.

What does this suggest? For one thing, the landscape is improving – but there is still a long way to go.  Why would even a single attorney with a case in the Pilot Program ignore relevant ESI issues? One of the major problems with the vagueness of the Federal Rules was a lack of clear-cut guidance. Now, even though there is a Standing Order in the case providing guidance and Principle 2.01 (d) outlining sanctions that could be imposed for failure to comply, some lawyers still do not.

Every Circuit should be forming a Committee and bringing practitioners, judges and experts together to weigh in on these important ESI issues.  Fortunately, there is a successful model available with hard data.  The 7th Circuit’s Principles and Standing Order are a good place to start.

(Editor’s note: This special guest post was written by Chitrang Shah, Clearwell Principal Product Manager. He is an RIT alum and avid hiker who works with our engineering team and lead customers to optimize the product for large-scale review. – Kurt)

As we’ve previously shared, our product strategy throughout 2009 and 2010 was to expand the product footprint across the EDRM as customers were demanding a single, end-to-end eDiscovery product. During this period we successfully expanded from our roots in processing, search and analysis to review and production (August 2009), identification and collection (September 2010) and legal hold workflow (March 2011). Over the last several months, our focus has been to go deep in each of these modules and provide features that deliver even greater return on investment to our customers.

Today, I am excited to announce significant new features and feature enhancements to the Clearwell Review and Production Module and say a few words about what motivated us to build these features and how they enable our customers to further streamline their legal review workflow.

There are several exciting features in this release, but I would to like to highlight three in particular:

1. Ability to seamlessly import production load files

Most matters require reviewing relevant documents alongside the documents received from third parties, opposing parties, and even previous litigations. With the new load file import feature, users can now streamline the process of importing load files with three simple steps.

In Step 1, a step-by-step wizard-like interface guides users though the selection of formatting information such as field delimiters and nested value delimiters, metadata information such as bates numbers, family relationships, tags, folders and any number of custom attributes, and content information such as images, extracted text and native files. When the load file has both extracted texts and native files, the wizard gives users an option to specify which content should be used for searching.

In Step 2, the system performs a deep validation of the load file and generates a report documenting any inconsistencies such as missing bates numbers or missing values for required fields found in the load file. As a result, customers have the ability to quickly find and fix any issues with the load file before the import begins.

In Step 3, the system imports the documents and builds analytics. Once this step completes, the imported documents, including all metadata and content, are available for viewing and searching.

All the analytics capabilities customers are familiar with, such as discussion threads and concept search, are also available for documents imported from load files. This allows users to quickly discover documents in the load file that are conceptually similar to natively processed documents, for example.

2. Support for large scale reviews and productions

As the volume of electronically stored information (ESI) continues to grow, our customers find themselves reviewing and exporting more and more documents, and they need a solution that can cope with the massive growth in data. At the same time, they don’t want to spend large sums of money building a server farm in anticipation of the growth. They want the flexibility to add capacity when needed and remove it when not needed.

Clearwell’s scale-out architecture enables administrators to easily add appliances and allocate them to a particular matter and to a specific task using a point-and-click interface.

For example, if an administrator needs to increase the number of reviewers from 200 to 400 in order to meet a tight deadline, he or she can easily add 2 appliances to the cluster and assign them for review. Once the review completes, the administrator can now easily re-assign these appliances for production, allowing users to easily meet deadlines while reducing their overall hardware costs.

This flexibility allows our customers to maximize the use of their hardware resources while providing infinite review, export and production scalability.

3. Streamlined management of exports and productions

Clearwell provides powerful export options, and while our customers use them extensively for creating a variety of different production formats, they typically standardize on a few. Clearwell’s new case export and production templates provide a quick and easy way for case administrators to define the export format once and use it across multiple cases. When exporting documents, users can simply select a template from the list of visible templates in that case. This capability significantly reduces the overhead associated with managing export formats and allows our customers to produce documents in a consistent format across multiple matters.

Additionally, new production pre-mediation reports automatically identify problem documents and group them by issue type for quick resolution. This enables users to preemptively identify and resolve document production issues without delaying entire productions.

Says Wendy Butler Curtis, chair of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe’s eDiscovery Working Group, “Legal review is one of the most challenging phases of the eDiscovery process. As electronic data volumes continue to grow, it is increasingly important to leverage technologies that can streamline and improve legal review, ensure defensibility and reduce costs. Solutions like the Clearwell eDiscovery Platform enable legal teams to create an iterative eDiscovery workflow that allows for more efficient and effective large-scale review.”

We will be showcasing the new features at ILTA (Booth 816) this week in Nashville, so come see us and let us know what you think.

(Chitrang Shah is a Principal Product Manager at Clearwell Systems, now a part of Symantec, and the lead Product Manager for Clearwell’s Processing & Analysis and Review & Production Modules)

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.

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.

Learn More On Litigation Software & Litigation Support Software.

Since I’ve finished off the last of the Halloween candy and tossed out the moldy, squirrel ravaged pumpkins, it occurred to me that now might be a good time to think about what 2010 will hold for the electronic discovery industry.  My 2009 list seems to have been fairly prescient and many of those notions still hold true since the legal industry (as we know) doesn’t move at the most blistering pace.

Again, doing my best Nostradamus impersonation, here are my top ten trends for 2010:

1. Early case assessment (ECA) moves from a “nice to have” to a “must have” requirement for any matter involving electronically stored information (ESI).  In 2009, we saw ECA move into the mainstream as a methodology to quickly understand case facts, assess risk and lower both review and data processing costs.  But, in 2010, with the advancement of the tools and the increased socialization within the bar and the litigation support community, ECA will graduate into a core methodology for savvy litigators regardless of matter type or size.
2. Appetites for broad information lifecycle management initiatives diminish as organizations realize these programs are far too complex to solve specific pain points, and they often take too much time (measured in years) to execute.  The economic reality is that these holistic, cross data, cross enterprise pipe dreams really can’t demonstrate the ROI that’s needed in today’s challenging economy.
3. Staffing roles continue to evolve with a newfound focus on project management. The role of an in-house e-discovery coordinator will emerge as more of a project management and analyst versus pure legal or IT. This shift will become increasingly necessary as e-discovery evolves from an ad-hoc fire drill to a standard business process that is repeatable, measurable, and defensible.
4. Data analytics and statistical methodologies gain traction to augment the type of subjective decision making approaches that have historically formed the backbone of the e-discovery search and review processes.  These objective methodologies have long been called on as best practices by the likes of the Sedona Working Group. In 2010, they now will start to move from theoretical to practical task as e-discovery tools increasingly move in-house and departments enhance defensibility and add elements such as sampling into the workflow.
5. Platform e-discovery solutions finally become a reality as customers finally graduate from painfully stitching point solutions together, thus requiring less physical document hand-offs (i.e., exports and imports) between applications, cutting costs and lowering the risk of data loss.
6. Associate-based review gradually goes extinct, as both clients and law firms tire of expensive, linear review processes.  More review work becomes either insourced or is managed with specialized contract attorneys, who are both cheaper and better trained for this type of work.
7. Similarly, FRE 502 and “clawback” agreements will be increasingly used to reduce the need for any manual, eyes-on review, although many litigators will resist this trend because of the fears of “un-ringing the bell” when privileged information is disclosed in any context.
8. While perhaps anathema, alternatives to the much lauded EDRM model will gain traction, as practitioners strive to find an even better, and perhaps more practical, project management framework, in many cases acknowledging the role that the EDRM has taken in forming *the* lingua franca of the e-discovery industry.
9. The push for cooperation in the e-discovery process, will make incremental progress despite reticence by old school litigators.  Increasingly, this type of cooperation, as strongly advocated by the Sedona Working Group, will be ironically forced by judges and local rules.
10. “Cloud” computing starts to really impact how e-discovery data preservation/collection is done, both in terms of social media and traditional ESI.  More and more companies block social media applications and file types in the workplace because of fears surrounding the inability to preserve and collect.

Recently, I moderated a panel at the Masters Conference with John Loveland, Sonya Thornton, and Bruce Markowitz entitled: How Defensible is Your E-Discovery Process? (Click here to read a summary of the panel.) It was well attended, and I think that the draw (aside from the esteemed panel) was that this topic still remains very vexing for most practitioners.

Initially, we started at ground zero with the notion that defensibility is in most instances equated with the “reasonableness” standard, which is pervasive across many areas of the EDRM spectrum… from preservation to production.  Instances include:

• Preservation — “[a]s soon as a potential claim is . . . identified, a party is under a duty to preserve evidence which it knows, or reasonably should know, is relevant to the future litigation.”
• FRE 502 (b) – the disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a Federal or State proceeding if the (2) the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure;
• General Privilege Waiver — In SEC v. Badian, 2009 WL 222783 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2009)(link), “there is no basis … to conclude that there were precautions [to prevent the disclosure], let alone whether they were reasonable.”
• FRCP 37(e) — Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.

While the foregoing isn’t exhaustive it does highlight the persistent nature of the reasonableness standard as practitioners seek a defensibility sanctuary.  The good news is that the law doesn’t require perfection and there are also a number of ways to obtain reasonable defensibility:

• Demonstrable acceptance by the opposition – here the notion is that collaboration with the opposition allows the parties to comfortably move ahead with their discovery process and even if it’s not objectively reasonable, the parties consent to the protocol will in most instances carry an imprimatur of reasonableness.
• Auditing / process transparency.  Similar to the first bullet, auditing the process and giving the opposition visibility into the process steps will often make it hard for them to lodge successful downstream challenges.
• Adherence to Local Rules (See 7th Circuit Pilot Program) or judicial order.  Another avenue than can provide some degree of safety is compliance with a discovery protocol mandated by local rules, although that compliance may ultimately be challenged.
• Statistical confidence intervals / sampling – the use of statistics as a way to bolster process defensibility is starting to come to maturity and in the future I think that detailed precision, recall and other statistical indicates will play a large role in e-discovery defensibility.

None of these steps can be guaranteed to really get you off the hook from a rapid opposing party calling foul, but using them in a “belt and suspenders” fashion will certainly help buttress any discovery process.

For more illumination on the topic please see the following video of my interview with John Loveland, who’s waxing poetically about discovery defensibility.

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

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

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

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

Maybe this will show my age, but I’ve been around the electronic discovery business since the days when pricing was both simple and very expensive. Terabytes were at the mythical high-end of the spectrum and gigabytes of “e-docs” (not “ESI”) cost $3,000 – $4,000 to process. Understandably (and fortunately for most), pricing models have evolved, thanks in part to more educated consumers and initiatives such as Sedona’s RFP + Vendor Panel.

Leaving the WABAC machine and moving into present times, we’ve starting to see some variance from traditional pricing models that primarily focus on data “into” the processing machine. More and more companies (such as Kroll Ontrack) are moving to models that price on data “out” of the process. Since that’s a bit nebulous, an example might illustrate:

Traditionally, in a somewhat simplified fashion, an electronic discovery project would be priced by the amount of data in the initial corpus (say 100 gigabytes) and processing would be priced at $500 a gigabyte (for round numbers purposes). Leaving out the sometimes significant caveat that the 100 gigabytes would likely increase due to expansion of compressed files, this would mean that the bulk of the project expenses would be $50,000 ($500 x 100), plus relatively nominal costs for monthly hosting and user access rights.

At the end of the day, after elimination of system files, deduplication and application of search terms (reducing the initial corpus by say 70% collectively) there would be 30 gigabytes remaining for hosting and possible production, both of which are most often priced separately.

Given rampant commoditization there’s an arms race underway among certain service providers where they’re now changing the above model to give away initial processing as a loss leader – pricing only on the data that comes out the end of the processing/search step. In this approach the above workflow would largely stay the same, but the vendor would charge a higher rate for what ultimately is hosted on the back-end. If this back-end fee was $2,000 per resulting gigabyte and the same 30 gigabytes was seen out the back end, then the customer would pay $60,000 for the project. But, if the deduplication, searching, culling, etc. was more effective (at say 80%) then the resulting 20 gigabytes would only cost $40,000.

The question then, as Clint Eastwood would put it, is: “Do you feel lucky?” This pricing model forces attorneys and litigation support managers to guesstimate what culling, search, and de-duplication rates they’ll likely get on the data corpus. Guess right and they save the end client money, guess wrong and they’re way over budget.

The dynamics of this purchasing decision are a bit atypical because the buyer (usually counsel) doesn’t pay the bills, so the decision can often be more vexing than most. When a direct consumer gambles on pricing things will ideally balance out over time, with money being saved in some instances and some being overspent in others. But, when the buyer doesn’t pay the bills the motivation is less clear.

Thoughts run to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to determine which pricing model is ultimately more compelling: (a) price certainty/adherence to budget, or (b) cost variability and the opportunity to save money. While it’s never good to understate the upside of saving money (Esteem), I think ultimately there’s a more fundamental need (Safety) to stay within budget and avoid the painful (sometimes client imperiling) call to discuss how a given e-discovery project has gone way over budget.

This calculation is made further vexing because it not only pits the purchasing party against unknown data culling/searching rates, but it also puts the vendor in an ethical bind where they make less money if they’re supremely effective at data reduction, whereas if they’re either intentionally or accidentally beneficiaries of relatively little data reduction then they stand to make a ton of upside.

It’s like you went to Vegas to gamble your kid’s college fund and on top of the already questionable house odds you knew that the dealer stood to profit by your losses. So, as for myself, no, I don’t feel lucky.