e-discovery 2.0

There are two independent analyst reports which identify the top electronic discovery software vendors.

The first, published in July 2008, is the Socha-Gelbmann Annual Electronic Discovery Survey, which gathers data from about 50 law firms and corporations, and over 120 electronic discovery software and service providers. It differs from a typical survey in that the results are screened, scrubbed, and analyzed by its authors, George Socha  and Tom Gelbmann (both of EDRM fame). George and Tom are universally respected for their domain expertise and integrity, and they do a great job distilling all that data down into a 360-page report which is available at their website.

The second independent analyst report is Gartner’s eDiscovery MarketScope, which was released today (December 2008) and is available for purchase here. This report is written for corporations interested in buying electronic discovery software, and it applies Gartner’s rigorous research methodology to the eDiscovery space. In the past year, Gartner has expanded its coverage of electronic discovery from 1 analyst to 3, as Debra Logan has been joined by John Bace and Whit Andrew. All of them are immensely knowledgeable and have their finger on the pulse of enterprise eDiscovery.

Based on their independent research, Socha-Gelbmann and Gartner each identify the top electronic discovery software providers. In other spaces, like email archiving, Gartner summarizes its conclusions with a “Magic Quadrant” diagram. There’s not yet a Magic Quadrant for electronic discovery, but we can use a similar framework to summarize the two reports. Just take the results from Socha-Gelbmann and Gartner and map them against each other. You get a picture that looks something like this:

The “Socha-Gartner Magic Quadrant” for Electronic Discovery

Only 2 software providers earn the highest ranking from both Socha-Gelbmann and Gartner: Clearwell, for processing, analysis and review; and FTI Ringtail, for document-by-document linear review. Attenex, which does processing (WorkBench) and review (Patterns), was rated “strong positive” by Gartner and a “Top 6-10″ player by Socha-Gelbmann. Its rankings were likely impacted by its acquisition by FTI in July 2008.  Symantec does well with Gartner, since many of its email archiving customers use Discovery Accelerator to search and export data from Enterprise Vault. Autonomy’s IDOL / Aungate / Introspect products achieved the top ranking from Socha-Gelbmann, but not from Gartner which warns customers to “expect longer implementation periods and a higher price tag” (page 11). Guidance also scores well in both reports, and was placed ahead of several of its competitors for identification and collection of electronic information

Other Leading Electronic Discovery Software Vendors

While the two reports agree on a small number of top electronic discovery software vendors, they also highlight a broader group of other leading players. Below is a list of vendors who are ranked highly by one analyst, but not by the other:

(1) Defined as companies ranked in the Top 10 E-Discovery Software Vendors by Socha-Gelbmann, but NOT rated “strong positive” or “positive” by Gartner.

(2) Defined as companies rated as “strong positive” or “positive” by Gartner, but NOT ranked in the Top 10 E-Discovery Software Vendors by Socha Gelbmann.

Many of the differences between the two reports are easily explained. For example, some vendors who score well with Socha-Gelbmann, like Lexis-Nexis, Epiq and iCONECT, were not considered by Gartner as they do not provide behind-the-firewall solutions. Others like CT Summation focus heavily on law firms, not enterprises, and so again were not included in Gartner’s analysis.

On the other side of the coin, virtually all of the firms ranked highly by Gartner are included somewhere in Socha-Gelbmann’s rankings. IBM’s new eDiscovery Manager and eDiscovery Analyzer products work well for customers with all their data in IBM CommonStore or FileNet8. Mimosa and Zylab are alternatives to Symantec, and offer e-discovery modules for data stored in their email archives. PSS Systems focuses on managing the litigation hold process for large enterprises; Kazeon competes with StoredIQ, Guidance, and many other players in the identification/collection phases of EDRM; and, Recommind is an information access vendor that has recently moved into e-discovery, focused on law firms.

Conclusions

If electronic discovery is like any other category of software, as the market matures, customers will coalesce around a small number of market leaders. Those companies accelerate from the pack as they are better funded and have more customers, improving their products more quickly than smaller players who find it impossible to catch up.

While the electronic discovery software industry is still relatively young, that process is underway, and the eventual market leaders are likely to come from the vendors highlighted in these two reports.

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

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

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

1. Bringing eDiscovery In-House Dramatically Reduces Cost

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

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

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

3. There Are 4 Leading eDiscovery Software Companies

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

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

4. There Will Be Consolidation In The Next 12 Months

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

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

Picking five out of the sea of electronic discovery cases isn’t as easy as it sounds.  Sure, a few, like our “Case of the Year” will be no-brainers, but others aren’t as clear cut.  And, they’re certainly open to debate.  But, in my humble opinion here’s THE list, counting down David Letterman style:

5) Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 2008 WL 4595175 (D. Md. Oct. 15, 2008)

If there ever was an opinion written by a judge to make a larger societal point, Mancia was certainly it.  Judge Paul Grimm, who’ll appear on this list in another slot as well, has clearly taken the mantle from Judge Scheindlin as the leading electronic discovery jurist.  He’d heretofore authored a number of significant opinions in this area, including Hobson and Thompson. Now, in Mancia he used a garden variety discovery dispute, which was typically rife with boilerplate objections and other obstreperous tactics, to highlight the Sedona Conference’s Cooperation Proclamation.

The lasting takeaway from the opinion is the notion that “[c]ourts repeatedly have noted the need for attorneys to work cooperatively to conduct electronic discovery, and sanctioned lawyers and parties for failing to do so.” To support this notion he cites the Sedona Conference Proclamation and the little used FRCP 26(g).  This opinion is noteworthy because it gives precedent to bolster the Sedona initiative and should provide a ready citation for all those counsel who aren’t getting the level of cooperation they need from the opposition.  It remains to be seen if other judges will follow suit, but this could be the beachhead for a more cooperative electronic discovery process in 2009 and beyond.

4) Flagg v. City of Detroit, 252 F.R.D. 346 (E.D. Mich. 2008)

Flagg highlights the growing need to reconcile the electronic discovery landscape, which typically focuses somewhat myopically on email, with the larger informational trends which are now categorized by the use of blogs, social networking sites, instant messaging, and text messaging.  Flagg was one of the first to determine text messages (e.g., messages exchanged among certain officials and employees of the City of Detroit via city-issued text messaging devices) were discoverable under the standards of FRCP 26(b)(1).  The holding further demonstrated the challenges of conducting electronic discovery across information systems that mix personal information with business communications.  This type of information commingling will continue to escalate, causing significant long term electronic discovery challenges due to thorny privacy, privilege and policy implications.

3) Rhoads Indus., Inc. v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 2008 WL 4916026 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2008)

Rhoads is one of the first cases post Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 502, which recently created a national standard (versus the previous split in jurisdictions) and now states a “middle ground” for the determining of inadvertent disclosure during electronic discovery.  The key provision is (b)(2) which provides protection only if “the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure.”  So, Rhoads took that “reasonableness” question head on in a scenario where the plaintiff Rhoads admittedly (yet inadvertently) produced over eight hundred privileged, electronic documents.  The decision is significant because it used the five-factor test stated in Fidelity, but put an undue weighting on the final test which was: “whether the overriding interests of justice would be served by relieving the party of its errors.”   This approach potentially threatens the development of sound case law that will be necessary to help the deployment of FRE 502 into practice because it casts too much uncertainty with its weighting of “fairness” (a problematically vague notion) in the analysis.  It will be interesting to see if/how this approach is subsequently adopted as we enter the New Year.

2) Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 2008 WL 66932 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2008)

This for many was the case of the year given it’s far reaching implications for the legal community.  Some have argued that this isn’t an e-discovery abuse case per se, but more of an example of discovery abuses that just so happened to be centered around ESI.  In either case, the fraud, resulting cover-up, sanctions, ethical issues and privilege discussions made for insightful and thought provoking reading throughout 2008.  The lasting takeaway from Qualcomm appears to be the implications of not just committing discovery abuses, but the failure of having a well thought out e-discovery plan that is actively executed/monitored by outside counsel.  The resulting tension between outside counsel, inside counsel and the internal IT department may continue to escalate if more cases like this make the headlines in 2009.

1)  E-Discovery Case of the Year: Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2008 WL 2221841 (D. Md. May 29, 2008)

Judge Grimm’s hallmark opinion has had the legal community buzzing over the past several months and the reason appears pretty straight forward.  In Victor Stanley Grimm builds on the holdings in Seroquel, O’Keefe and Equity Analytics, to boldly cast doubt on a practice so routine that it’s literally shocked the legal community into reevaluation:

(”[D]etermining whether a particular search methodology, such as keywords, will or will not be effective certainly requires knowledge beyond the ken of a lay person (and a lay lawyer) . . . .”

The notion that electronic discovery search is beyond the ability of most attorneys has caused tremors within the litigation support community who had a long history of blindly receiving keywords from counsel, running them and turning back over the results - often blissfully unaware of the extent to which those keyword searches actually located relevant information.  Victor Stanley’s analysis of the “reasonableness” of search protocols also has impact on the FRE 502 and therefore cements its place alongside other e-discovery “must reads” such as Zubulake and Morgan Stanley.

The cases above are my Top 5.  What additional cases do you think were important?  Please let me know by commenting on the cases you think shaped electronic discovery in 2008 and why.

Without getting in Dutch with the key Sedona Conference principle that “what happens at Sedona, stays at Sedona” I thought I’d nevertheless write a post that focuses on the core topic at this year’s annual meeting, namely the case for cooperation in e-discovery.

According to the “Cooperation Proclamation” e-discovery is facing an unprecedented crisis:

“The costs associated with adversarial conduct in pre-trial discovery have become a serious burden to the American judicial system. This burden rises significantly in discovery of electronically stored information (”ESI”). In addition to rising monetary costs, courts have seen escalating motion practice, overreaching, obstruction, and extensive, but unproductive discovery disputes - in some cases precluding adjudication on the merits altogether - when parties treat the discovery process in an adversarial manner. Neither law nor logic compels these outcomes. With this Proclamation, The Sedona Conference launches a national drive to promote open and forthright information sharing, dialogue (internal and external), training, and the development of practical tools to facilitate cooperative, collaborative, transparent discovery.”

These sentiments about the “broken” nature of the discovery process echo in many ways the draft findings from the Interim Report & 2008 Litigation Survey from the Fellows of the American College of Trial Lawyers which stated:

“The joint study grew out of a concern that discovery is increasingly expensive and that the expense and burden of discovery are having substantial adverse effects on the civil justice system. There is a serious concern that the costs and burdens of discovery are driving litigation away from the court system and forcing settlements based on the costs, as opposed to the merits, of cases.”

In both instances, the core notion is that “we’ve met the enemy and the enemy is us” because it’s the participants in the process have collectively perverted the discovery process to the point it’s at today.

Sedona’s focus on this front has received at least some traction from the bench, as echoed in Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 2008 WL 4595175 (D. Md. Oct. 15, 2008).  Mancia, written by leading e-discovery jurist Judge Grimm, was a fairly pedestrian employment litigation case where the parties had come to loggerheads over the e-discovery process.  Judge Grimm held that “[c]ourts repeatedly have noted the need for attorneys to work cooperatively to conduct discovery, and sanctioned lawyers and parties for failing to do so” citing both the Sedona Cooperation Proclamation and the Survey.

Judge Grimm also observed that the these recent lamentations about the costs of civil litigation aren’t terribly dissimilar to those voiced eighteen years ago when the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. §§ 471 et seq., was passed:

“Perhaps the greatest driving force in litigation today is discovery. Discovery abuse is a principal cause of high litigation transaction costs. Indeed, in far too many cases, economics-and not the merits-govern discovery decisions. Litigants of moderate means are often deterred through discovery from vindicating claims or defenses, and the litigation process all too often becomes a war of attrition for all parties.”

Given the fundamentally adversarial nature of litigation, the Sedona initiative is either dramatically ambitious or simply tilting at windmills.  While generally a skeptic by nature, I think that the bench’s early participation and downstream behavior modification is the linchpin to reforming the litigating masses.  Given the long term “sales” cycle involved here, I doubt if we’ll know whether this effort will gain real traction for at least several years.

There’s a lot of excitement (and corresponding uncertainty) about the recent passing of Federal Rule of Evidence 502 (FRE 502), which was signed into law on Sept 19th.  The main reason that the legal community is excited about FRE 502 is because of the potential for cost savings by reducing the amount of money associated with the e-discovery review process, which is routinely viewed as the most expensive area in the entire e-discovery process.

In combination with the codification of a national standard to determine when a privilege has been waived, FRE 502 is primarily designed to make the use of claw-back agreements a truly viable prospect when doing e-discovery privilege review.  It should provide some panacea (ideally) for rapidly escalating e-discovery costs.  Or, at least that was the impetus behind the rule’s creation - according to the Comments:

“The proposed new rule facilitates discovery and reduces privilege-review costs by limiting the circumstances under which the privilege or protection is forfeited, which may happen if the privileged or protected information or material is produced in discovery. The burden and cost of steps to preserve the privileged status of attorney-client information and trial preparation materials can be enormous. Under present practices, lawyers and firms must thoroughly review everything in a client’s possession before responding to discovery requests. Otherwise they risk waiving the privileged status not only of the individual item disclosed but of all other items dealing with the same subject matter. This burden is particularly onerous when the discovery consists of massive amounts of electronically stored information.”

In short, FRE 502 is designed to establish uniform, nationwide standards for waiver of attorney-client privilege and work product protection, with the main goal being to protect producing parties against the inadvertent disclosure of privileged materials or work product in either federal or state proceedings.  The salient section is subsection (b) which states that when a disclosure of privileged information is made in a federal proceeding or to a federal agency, the disclosure does not constitute a waiver if:

1. the disclosure is inadvertent;
2. the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and
3. the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error, including (if applicable) following Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B).

The end game here is presumably to increasingly leverage automated review methodologies to save costs.  But, in order to facilitate this type of review methodology without taking on unhealthy levels of risk means that claw-back provisions must be as airtight at possible to prevent inadvertent electronically stored information (ESI) productions.  And yet, exactly how FRE 502 will work in practice is up to debate since there isn’t any case law interpreting it yet.

One area that’s top of mind is how this new Rule will impact the recent decisions on e-discovery search, including the Victor Stanley case authored by Chief Magistrate Judge Grimm.  Since FRE 502 contains a core “reasonableness” prong in section (b) it’s likely that Grimm’s proclamation about e-discovery search will still be controlling.  Grimm fundamentally had to evaluate whether the producing party’s search protocols and procedures were in fact reasonable.

“Defendants, who bear the burden of proving that their conduct was reasonable for purposes of assessing whether they waived attorney-client privilege by producing the 165 documents to the Plaintiff, have failed to provide the court with information regarding: the keywords used; the rationale for their selection; the qualifications of M. Pappas and his attorneys to design an effective and reliable search and information retrieval method; whether the search was a simple keyword search, or a more sophisticated one, such as one employing Boolean proximity operators; or whether they analyzed the results of the search to assess its reliability, appropriateness for the task, and the quality of its implementation.” (footnotes omitted).

In Victor Stanley, the producing party wasn’t able to demonstrate reasonableness because they didn’t strategically craft out their strategy nor conduct any sampling to make sure that the e-discovery search worked as designed.  This type of analysis would still seem to come into play under FRE 502 and so, as Grimm states, the use of either a best practices or collaborative approach to e-discovery would seem to be as important as ever.

Given that backdrop it’s just as important as ever that parties “show their work” when it comes to e-discovery search.   Whether FRE 502 will really make parties feel safe enough to use automated review processes (thereby reducing costs) will remain to be seen.  But, this first step which unifies standards and expectations is at least a very positive step.