e-discovery 2.0

As a long-time reader of The Economist, I was excited to find that this week’s edition writes at length about the exponential growth in electronically stored information (ESI), and how people are using technology to manage it.  I believe this is one of the most significant “mega-trends” impacting our economy, and I was thrilled to see it recognized by a mainstream publication. But when I read the 14-page special report, I was disappointed to find that its analysis of the legal and regulatory implications of “the data deluge” is really weak.

The survey does a good job of teeing up the issue:

The world contains an unimaginably vast amount of digital information which is getting ever vaster ever more rapidly. This makes it possible to do many things that previously could not be done: spot business trends, prevent diseases, combat crime and so on. Managed well, the data can be used to unlock new sources of economic value, provide fresh insights into science and hold governments to account.

It goes on to talk about how companies like Walmart, which has 2.5 petabytes of point-of-sale transaction data, is using business intelligence software to analyze the 1 million transactions it does every hour. By doing so, Walmart is able to improve the efficiency of its supply chain and the effectiveness of its marketing. The article also describes how companies like Amazon and Google use web analytics software on click stream data to improve their services.

What’s missing is an equally intelligent analysis of the legal and regulatory implications of all this data. The move from paper to ESI (email and files) has created a user-generated, written record of everything that happens in a company. That’s incredibly helpful when, after the fact, questions or disputes arise. Rather than relying on incomplete recollections, courts and regulators can now consult a written record – one where every document is time-stamped and very often attached to a person’s name via email. That enables judges and regulators to get better information which, in turn, leads to better decisions. It’s hard to quantify the value of that, but there’s no doubt it’s substantial.

There is, however, a catch. Because the volume of ESI is so great, it’s really expensive to gather, sift through, and then produce information. Add the requirement that the process needs to be defensible (i.e., easily explained in court), and the whole thing gets really expensive really fast. Hence the need for electronic discovery software: it’s the only cost-effective way for companies to manage their ESI from a legal and regulatory perspective.

That’s why I believe e-discovery software will be as big a category as web analytics software or business intelligence software – it’s a different side to the same coin. Or, more specifically, a different dimension to managing digital information stores which, as The Economist points out, are growing tenfold every five years.

Update: Nick Patience at The 451 Group has also posted on this topic, at almost exactly the same time as me.

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 attended the Sedona Conference’s annual meeting in Atlanta and, amongst other interesting topics, was the discussion of local rules developments and in particular the Seventh Circuit’s new Electronic Discovery Pilot Program (“Pilot Program”).  The Pilot Program was launched October 1, 2009 and seems to be a model for collaboration, since it was developed by eliciting input from a number of disparate groups:

“(a) continuing comments by business leaders and practicing attorneys, regarding the need for reform of the civil justice pretrial discovery process in the United States, (b) the release of the March 11, 2009 Final Report on the Joint Project of the American College of Trial Lawyers Task Force on Discovery (“Task Force”) and the Institute for the advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver (“IAALS”), and (c) The Sedona Conference® Cooperation Proclamation.”

The impetus of the Pilot Program was the “broken” nature of the electronic discovery process with the belief that better collaboration and cooperation would certain help remediate the situation.

“The goal of the Principles is to incentivize early and informal information exchange on commonly encountered issues relating to evidence preservation and discovery, paper and electronic, as required by Rule 26(f)(2). Too often these exchanges begin with unhelpful demands for the preservation of all data, which often are followed by exhaustive lists of types of storage devices. Such generic demands lead to generic objections that similarly fail to identify specific issues concerning evidence preservation and discovery that could productively be discussed and resolved early in the case by agreement or order of the court. As a result, the parties often fail to focus on identifying specific sources of evidence that are likely to be sought in discovery but that may be problematic or unduly burdensome or costly to preserve or produce.”

What I really like about the Pilot Program is that it strives to be both prescriptive and practical, which should hopefully avoid the type of ambiguity often exploited by obstreperous counsel.  For example, there is an entire section on early case assessment (ECA) principles, which require discussion of:

• Production issues
• Identification of electronically stored information (ESI)
• The scope of preservation
• The meet & confer process

There’s also the relatively novel requirement that counsel designate an e-discovery “liaison” to work with the parties to coordinate and flesh out germane e-discovery issues.  Regardless of whether the e-discovery liaison is an attorney, a third party consultant, or an employee of the party, the e-discovery liaison(s) must:

“(a) be prepared to participate in e-discovery dispute resolution;

(b) be knowledgeable about the party’s e-discovery efforts;

(c) be, or have reasonable access to those who are, familiar with the party’s electronic systems and capabilities in order to explain those systems and answer relevant questions; and

(d) be, or have reasonable access to those who are, knowledgeable about the technical aspects of e-discovery, including electronic document storage, organization, and format issues, and relevant information retrieval technology, including search methodology.”

Needless to say, this requirement alone should make marked improvements in the e-discovery dialogue, which unfortunately seems like it’s occurring (literally) among participants who both speak different languages and don’t realize it.

Finally, what makes the Pilot Program unique is that its Principles will be subjected to testing during the phases of the Pilot Program, which is scheduled to end on May 1, 2010 (for the first phase).

This project certainly seems like it’s on the right track and pending feedback from the bench and bar, it could serve as a model for local jurisdiction everywhere.

Judge Grimm’s Victor Stanley case was lauded by many as one of the most significant electronic discovery cases of 2008, mainly for its bold proclamation that e-discovery search is a much more complex and technical discipline than has been typically understood by litigators.

“[F]or lawyers and judges to dare opine that a certain search term or terms would be more likely to produce information than the terms that were used is truly to go where angels fear to tread.”

Despite, legions of articles and blogs on the topic, at least certain portions of the bench haven’t taken heed.  In the case In re: Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litigation, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47636 (June, 5, 2009) (hereinafter “Zurn“), U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery receives points for understanding some basic e-discovery tenants around recall and precision, but then mysteriously goes where “angels fear to tread” by suggesting her own search terms.

Examining the case facts in more detail,…  Zurn is a class action products liability case where discovery was bifurcated (as is often the case – see Spieker v. Quest Cherokee) to first cover the class “certification” component.  Initially, the Magistrate partially closed the door on broader ESI discovery, stating that “while ESI may prove to be relevant to the first stage of discovery, we cannot meaningfully make that prediction now, and require the parties to engage in what could be vastly more expensive, and yet utterly futile, discovery.”  However, the Magistrate didn’t shut the door entirely, suggesting that “should the parties uncover voids in the information disclosed in hard copy form, they are . . . at liberty to press for further discovery including electronically stored information.”

Despite complying with Sedona’s Cooperation Proclamation (”The parties have worked amicably throughout the discovery process”) opposing counsel still got to loggerheads when plaintiff found “voids” in the initial paper productions via third party discovery.  The plaintiff brought a motion to compel ESI discovery and the defendant objected, stated two primary arguments: (1) the Magistrate earlier ruled out ESI discovery and (2) if they had to perform ESI discovery it would be unduly burdensome/expensive.

Judge Montgomery summary rejected the first argument, but was concerned about the burden surrounding the proposed ESI discovery.  Here, the calculations get a bit confusing, but plaintiff’s request would have resulted in 361 gigabytes of ESI from employee email sources, as well as shared “J” and “K” drives.  The defendant multiplied the gigabyte number by 75,000 pages per gigabyte, which would have required “approximately seventeen weeks and cost $ 1,150,000, exclusive of vendor collection and processing costs, to review and process the data.”  Assuming a rather modest $1,000 per gigabyte for processing and hosting costs, defendants could’ve added another $400,000 for the project.

Ultimately, the court was not persuaded by the supporting affidavits, nor the attorney’s representations about the resulting burden:

“It is unclear whether Zurn’s cost and time numbers are based on a review of 27 million pages of documents, the 3.6 million pages of documents limited to the J Drive and custodians’ emails, or a smaller sample of document pages likely to be flagged as a result of a search for certain relevant terms pro-posed by Plaintiffs. The affidavit of Ms. Freestone, an attorney and not an expert on document search and retrieval, is not compelling evidence that the search will be as burdensome as Zurn avers.”

The 361 gigabytes apparently resulted from “hits” corresponding to plaintiff’s 26 search terms.  The court correctly identified that those terms had precision issues (”many of Plaintiffs’ proposed search terms will likely produce a large number of ‘hits’ that have limited relevance in the case.”)

Unfortunately, in an effort to increase the search precision, the Judge did not take heed of Judge Grimm’s warning and surprisingly took matters into her own hands: “the Court will limit the search to the following fourteen terms based on the likelihood that they will  produce relevant documents without including a vast number of documents that are likely irrelevant to the litigation.”  Here is the Judge’s list of keywords:

(1) AADFW,
(2) Corrosion,
(3) Corrosive,
(4) Corrosive Water,
(5) Crack,
(6) De-zinc,
(7) Dezincification,
(8) DZR,
(9) Fail,
(10) IMR,
(11) Leak,
(12) MES,
(13) SCC,
(14) Stress corrosion cracking

Without looking at the underlying data, it’s clear from the outset that Judge Montgomery didn’t craft a good search strategy (as Judge Grimm might have predicted).  For example, terms 2, 3, 4 and 14 could’ve been captured by a single stemmed search using the term “corros*.” Without such a stemmed search approach, the terms would probably have been run singly in the proposed protocol, meaning that each one would’ve had tremendous duplication, thereby resulting in wasted attorney review time and processing costs.

Judge Montgomery did recognize the potential error of her ways and gave the parties an out:

“The parties may decide on a different set of fourteen terms if they choose to do so. Additionally, if the search, as ordered by the Court, proves to be overly burdensome or costly, Zurn may renew its objection by presenting the Court with specific information including evidence from computer experts on applying the search terms, the number of documents identified, and the cost and time burdens of vetting documents.”

This “specific evidence” language seems to track notions from Sedona’s search best practices protocol, which prescribes sampling and iterative search term refinement.  What is surprising is that knowing this she would nevertheless blindly proffer the 14 term search strategy.  Instead, she should’ve quoted Victor Stanley and required the parties to come up with a data driven approach that met requisite precision and recall metrics.

There are legions of Arnold Schwarzenegger quotes, including the famous “I’ll be back” from The Terminator.  Well, true to this sentiment, The Governator finally coughed up his hairball and made good on the promises to push through California’s long overdue alignment with the electronic discovery changes made by the FRCP on 12/1/2006.

Citing mysterious budgetary concerns (which still elude me), The Governator initially vetoed Assembly Bill No. 5.  But as of July 1^st, California’s new electronic discovery provisions were finally made law.  Interestingly enough, California (which tends to more progressive than most) was way behind the times in terms of adopting the new framework of the FRCP…

“The California Discovery Act hadn’t really been revised or amended since the mid-1980s,” said Patrick O’Donnell, the supervising attorney for the Judicial Council’s Office of the General Counsel who led efforts to write the state’s e-discovery law. “This is really a major step to address the changes in the world of electronic data since then. … This gives a lot more clarity and certainty in how the issue will be focused on.”

Instead of the alleged budgetary concerns it appeared that California had (and still has) bigger fish to fry and needed some extra cycles to get lawmakers, attorneys, Silicon Valley leaders and court administrators all on the same page.

The new California provisions pretty closely mirror the FRCP language with a few minor exceptions, called out by Joshua M. Briones and Anahit Tagvoryan in their recent article…

• Minor tweaks to the Rule 37 language around the safe harbor provisions broadening slightly (beyond “loss”) the California language to also preclude sanctions where ESI is “lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten.”
• No corresponding meet & confer provisions in the California statute similar to the Rule 16 and 26 sections in the FRCP.
• Inaccessibility provisions of FRCP 26(b)(2)(B) changed slightly to require producing party to file a protective order for ESI it believes is not reasonably accessible due to “undue burden or expense.”

While a long time in the offing, these provisions (despite the minor tweaks) should be a refreshing change for California practitioners who’ve been waiting too long for the other shoe to drop.  Now, case law can start to develop, which will continue the honing-in process…

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.

Lately, the electronic discovery blogosphere has been, well, a-twitter about twitter and other social media as they relate to electronic discovery. While twitter struggles to find a business model, enterprises and law firms are racing to understand the implications of this latest boomtown of user-generated content that’s being built in out on the frontier of the World Wide Web (or is that Wild Wild West?).

There’s talk of intellectual property being cast out, irrevocably, onto the Internet for all to see. Or slanderous things being uttered for which your company may be held liable. But, hold on a second: is there really anything new here? Anyone heard of e-mail? Web pages? Peer-to-peer? Google? Instant messaging? As Debra Logan astutely points out in her recent post on the topic, “everything that exists is discoverable (at least pretty much).” If you haven’t already, take a look at the FRCP’s definition of ESI and you’ll get her point. So, yes, it’s obviously important to have a common sense corporate policy around what’s appropriate and what’s not for the public Internet, but it shouldn’t be any different from the policy that you should have already had in place regarding blogs, web pages, and email.

What about the other side of the electronic discovery coin: finding information that’s responsive to a request? If anything, social media are more easily discoverable than just about any other form of user-generated content (though admittedly in some cases they can be more transient, which can post unique challenges). And, while it’s not universally true, the argument can be made that the more easily something can be discovered, the lower the cost and risk of that content to you. Worried if anyone on twitter is stealing your new idea for a router architecture? How about the top-secret approach to making coffee you were thinking about patenting? Well, if anyone twittered about it, tracking it down is a snap. Just keep in mind that because of the public nature of social media, it’s likely that the more important the information is to your company in the context of electronic discovery, the less likely it is to live out on the public Internet. Obviously, there will be exceptions. But when there are those exceptions, tracking down the relevant information will likely be a fairly straightforward and relatively inexpensive process.

However, before we dismiss social media as nothing new and something that can largely be addressed through already-existing policies and discovery techniques, let’s consider one aspect of social media that is on the upswing, but often out of the blogging limelight: enterprise applications.

Increasingly, companies are moving to advanced enterprise social media platforms such as Jive or SocialText as a way of improving internal collaboration and making projects run more smoothly and effectively. Because such enterprise platforms are often used on a company’s most important and strategic projects, having robust e-discovery capabilities to allow internal blog, wiki, and discussion content to be captured and placed into a format that can be seamlessly searched along with other more traditional documents is becoming critical to forward-thinking enterprises.

For example, I recently came across a large financial institution that uses Jive SBS as its wiki and Clearwell as its e-discovery solution. What surprised me is that this company has created its own Jive/Clearwell “adapter” that feeds Jive discussions directly into Clearwell as a conversation thread. This is just one example, but I’m sure more will follow. Over time, it will become a requirement for e-discovery platforms to integrate with enterprise social media products. And, rest assured, as that happens, we’ll be sure to tweet about it!

UPDATE: Whit Andrews of Gartner was kind enough point out his (prescient) research note on the subject of e-discovery and social networking from November, 2007. He points out that there is in fact a very important “new new thing” about social networks, which is that they may be able to be leveraged in an e-discovery context to find out more about the people relevant to an investigation. By tapping these publically-available sources of information, investigators may be able to gain better insight into private (i.e. enterprise) information stores to guide the e-discovery process. More detail on this and other insights can be found at http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=543110&ref=g_forward&call=email.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice try, but strike two for ASUS…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Isom and I have collaborated a number of times over the years on a variety of electronic discovery presentations and articles.  So, when I saw that California was proposing new state electronic discovery rules that had some interesting variances vis-à-vis the FRCP, I thought David might be able to give us the benefit of his unique and sage perspective.

1. David, as the author of the definitive piece about inaccessibility under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (The Burden of Discovering Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information: Rules 26(b)(2)(B)& 45(d)(1)(D)), how many litigators do you think really understand and use these provisions?

I sense that litigators with a basic understanding of the new electronic discovery rules know that the inaccessibility rule exists and provides some protection for parties against unduly burdensome discovery.  Few seem to have noticed that Rule 45 contains an inaccessibility provision whose language is similar to the Rule 26(b)(2)(B) inaccessibility protection for parties, but whose protections as applied to subpoenaed nonparties are greater than the protections for parties.  Here are the three most basic and exciting (or excruciating, depending upon your side of the fence) impacts of the new inaccessibility rules:

(1) The inaccessibility rule has completely changed a nonparty’s leverage to narrow subpoenas seeking electronically stored information (ESI).  Subpoenaed nonparties now have protection against fishing expedition subpoenas that did not exist before — to narrow subpoenas, or to require the payment of costs and attorney fees in responding to broad subpoenas.

(2) Cost-shifting, for parties as well as nonparties, is now controlled by the inaccessibility rules.  Several federal courts have recently held that discovery cost-shifting is allowed only if these inaccessibility rules provide for cost-shifting under the circumstances.

(3)  The inaccessibility rules must be asserted and asserted timely if they are to provide protection.  For example, after counsel for nonparty Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight spent $6 million of our money responding to a subpoena in In re Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, 552 F. 3d 814 (D.C. Cir. 2009), counsel tried to recover the money on an inaccessibility cost-shifting argument.  To which the United States District Court and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said, in essence:  you might have had a good idea, and saved your client $6 million, had you raised the arguments before agreeing to produce the documents and spending all that money.  But you agreed to produce the ESI and cannot come back now and get any protection.  You should have studied the inaccessibility rule.

2. So, assuming we’re still early in the learning curve, do you think these FRCP provisions are really gaining traction either in practice or in the case law?

Judging by the number of reported decisions, the inaccessibility rules are receiving as much attention as the other new features of the federal electronic discovery rules.  Which, I suppose, is damnation by faint praise — a large percentage of the reported cases are about what should happen because lawyers didn’t understand or apply the rules properly. Cason-Merenda v. Detroit Medical Center, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51962 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 2008) is a good example.  There, defendant’s counsel produced ESI without any objection and without pre-identifying the ESI as inaccessible.  After production, counsel tried to get their opponents to share the cost of producing the allegedly inaccessible ESI.  The court correctly held that the ESI must be identified as inaccessible in advance of the production to give the seeking party the option to decide whether the discovery is really worth the candle, especially given the prospect that the cost of production might be shifted to the seeking party.

3. What are your thoughts on the new California state provisions regarding “inaccessible” ESI where they’re proposing a different treatment and slightly different burden?  And, will this approach ultimately weaken responding parties abilities to make “inaccessible” claims successfully?

I am not an expert on California law, but am keenly interested in what the states are doing with electronic discovery.  As of this writing (May 2009), it appears that California Assembly Bill No. 5 has not yet been enacted.  Yet, here are some thoughts about how the inaccessibility provisions of this bill, if enacted, would compare to the federal rules of inaccessibility.  The bottom line is that the California bill is remarkably similar to the federal rules on inaccessibility issues.

Under the federal rules, a party seeking protection for inaccessibility initiates the process by “simply” (so far, the courts have tolerated fairly sparse identifications as satisfying this requirement) identifying the sources of information claimed to be not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.  The subpoenaed nonparty seeking protecting can initiate by identifying the ESI sought as not reasonably accessible in an objection, motion to quash or motion for protective order.  In the federal system, either the seeking party or the protecting party or nonparty can move to test the issue (one by a motion to compel, the other by a motion for protective order).

The California bill is nearly identical to the federal process.  The bill provides that a person resisting a subpoena for ESI on inaccessibility grounds may “oppose” the subpoena.  If this means that such a person can either object or move to quash or move for a protective order, it appears to be the same as the federal rule.  The California bill specifies that a party resisting a production request on inaccessibility grounds initiates protection by identifying the types or categories of sources of electronically stored information that it asserts are not reasonably accessible.  This is similar to the federal rule, whose text requires identification of “sources”, but whose committee notes clarify that merely “types or categories of sources” of inaccessible, responsive ESI need be identified.  The California’s Legislative Counsel’s Digest indicates that the process for protecting inaccessible ESI, apparently for both parties and subpoenaed nonparties, can be initiated by moving for a protective order, or by opposing or objecting to the subpoena or request.

Even if there are any distinctions in the above processes, the two processes appear to merge thereafter.  In both systems, the motions to test inaccessibility must be preceded by a conference of counsel to attempt in good faith to resolve the issue, together with a certificate that such an attempt has been made.  In both, the person seeking protection has the burden of proving inaccessibility (this is even true in the federal system where the process is initiated by the seeker’s motion to compel).  In both systems, if the holding party proves inaccessibility, the burden shifts to the seeking party to show good cause for producing the ESI, despite its inaccessibility.

And in both, if good cause is shown, the court may still impose conditions upon production, including cost-shifting.  In both, the factors that the courts are to consider in determining good cause are similar — more accessible, less burdensome sources; cumulativeness of the discovery; whether the burden or expense of the discovery would outweigh the likely benefit of the discovery, considering such things as the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy and the resources of the parties.  One possible difference between the California bill and the federal rules on good cause is that the California bill requires the court to limit discovery if any of the listed factors exists, where the federal rules and committee notes seem to envision a pure balancing.

In sum, the California bill essentially adopts the federal approach.

Some confusion has arisen because California commentators have drawn a distinction between the California bill and a misinterpretation of the federal rules.  One commentator, for example, stated that “under the federal rules, if ESI is inaccessible, the responding party simply doesn’t need to produce such documents.”  This ignores the affirmative identification duty that I discussed above.

4. With the rapid advancements in ESI restoration technologies, which the Comments to the Rule anticipated, are backup tapes in your mind still “inaccessible”?

The rules make it clear that inaccessibility cannot be measured by technology category alone.  The test does not depend upon the type of technology involved, but upon the balancing of need, technology, importance, spoliation, relevance, alternative sources and potential benefit against overbreadth, burden and cost.  So, if backup tapes are the only source available for important, relevant information because more accessible relevant sources have been spoliated, backup tapes will not be deemed inaccessible.  Without spoliation, if relevant ESI is available on active sources, backup tapes may not be discoverable.

Perhaps the main reason that categories of technology cannot be deemed per se accessible or inaccessible is that the technology is changing so fast.  Many search tasks that were expensive and difficult five years ago are much more doable now.

5. Finally, what do you think the future holds for these FRCP sections?

The inaccessibility rules will continue to be the main battleground where the great debates about the value and cost of electronic discovery will be fought, since these rules are specifically tailored to balance all of the interests in that debate.

Some groups are claiming that electronic discovery is wasteful and expensive, and that the new rules exacerbate the problem.  Of course, the federal rules ought always to be analyzed for problems and need for improvement, but I haven’t heard informed, thoughtful, helpful suggestions for improvements to the federal rules in the recent debate.  Overall, I see the adoption of the federal rules as having helped reduce the cost of electronic discovery, not increased the cost.

The bashing of our judicial system seems to have reached a fevered pitch.  Groups like the American College of Trial Lawyers (”ACTL”) have proclaimed in a recent report that while the “civil justice system is not broken, it is in serious need of repair.”  The blame game seems to have judges and attorneys alike pointing fingers.  The Fellows of the ACTL (perhaps not surprisingly) seems to pin some of the blame on the judiciary:

“Judges should have a more active role at the beginning of a case in designing the scope of discovery and the direction and timing of the case all the way to trial. Where abuses occur, judges are perceived not to enforce the rules effectively.”

Groups like the Sedona Conference chalk up many of the ills to the failure to cooperate, so much so that they’ve orchestrated a cooperation proclamation – which has picked up enough support by the bench to have garnered several cites in the case law (see e.g., Mancia).

The bench for its part seems to put some of the onus on litigators and their reticence to get with the times.  William A. Gross. Constr. Assocs., Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 WL 724954 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2009) is the latest example of such a proclamation.  In this construction defect case, Judge Peck (a Sedona devotee) issues what he hopes will be a “wake-up” call to the bar about the need for “careful thought, quality control, testing, and cooperation with opposing counsel in designing search terms or ‘keywords’ to be used to produce emails or other electronically stored information (‘ESI’).”  In Gross, the court had to mediate an e-discovery dispute where the requesting party propounded a blatantly over-inclusive search request crafted by the requesting parties.  Unfortunately, the responding entity was a non-party and they simply dig their heads in the sand.  In order to facilitate a resolution this left the Court in the “uncomfortable position” of having to craft a “keyword search methodology for the parties, without adequate information from the parties (and Hill).”

Judge Peck’s exasperation with these antics was palpable.  Summing up the problem by citing Judge Grimm and Victor Stanley he stated: “This case is just the latest example of lawyers designing keyword searches in the dark, by the seat of the pants, without adequate (indeed, here, apparently without any) discussion with those who wrote the emails.”  He further noted: “[w]hile this message has appeared in several cases from outside this Circuit, it appears that the message has not reached many members of our Bar.”

After noting both Sedona and Judge Facciola (of O’Keefe and Equity Analytics fame) Peck’s opinion reached a crescendo:

“Electronic discovery requires cooperation between opposing counsel and transparency in all aspects of preservation and production of ESI. Moreover, where counsel are using keyword searches for retrieval of ESI, they at a minimum must carefully craft the appropriate keywords, with input from the ESI’s custodians as to the words and abbreviations they use, and the proposed methodology must be quality control tested to assure accuracy in retrieval and elimination of ‘false positives.’ It is time that the Bar-even those lawyers who did not come of age in the computer era-understand this.”

While it’s easy to see who Peck blames in this brouhaha, it takes (at least) two to tango.  Meaning that litigants on both sides of the “v” must move beyond the typical “seat of the pants” electronic discovery wrangling.  And, judges need to be savvy enough to spot the issues to help/force the parties into such an enlightened/cooperative state.  Nothing short will get the job done.