Part of Dan Patrick’s syndicated radio show features a “What Did We Learn Today?” segment, and that inquiry seems fitting for this year’s LegalTech.

• First of all, the prognostications about buzzwords were spot on, with no shortage of cycles spent on predictive coding (aka Technology Assisted Review). The general session on Monday, hosted by Symantec, had close to a thousand attendees on the edge of their seats to hear Judge Peck, Maura Grossman and Ralph Losey wax eloquently about the ongoing man versus machine debate. Judge Peck uttered a number of quotable sound bites, including the quote of the day: “Keyword searching is absolutely terrible, in terms of statistical responsiveness.” Stay tuned for a longer post with more comments from the General session.
• Ralph Losey went one step further when commenting on keyword search, stating: “It doesn’t work,… I hope it’s been discredited.” A few have commented that this lambasting may have gone too far, and I’d tend to agree.  It’s not that keyword search is horrific per se. It’s just that its efficacy is limited and the hubris of the average user, who thinks eDiscovery search is like Google search, is where the real trouble lies. It’s important to keep in mind that all these eDiscovery applications are just like tools in the practitioners’ toolbox and they need to be deployed for the right task. Otherwise, the old saw (pun intended) that “when you’re a hammer everything looks like a nail” will inevitably come true.
• This year’s show also finally put a nail in the coffin of the human review process as the eDiscovery gold standard. That doesn’t mean that attorneys everywhere will abandon the linear review process any time soon, but hopefully it’s becoming increasingly clear that the “evil we know” isn’t very accurate (on top of being very expensive). If that deadly combination doesn’t get folks experimenting with technology assisted review, I don’t know what will.
• Information governance was also a hot topic, only paling in comparison to Predictive Coding. A survey Symantec conducted at the show indicated that this topic is gaining momentum, but still has a ways to go in terms of action. While 73% of respondents believe an integrated information governance strategy is critical to reducing information risk, only 19% have implemented a system to help them with the problem. This gap presumably indicates a ton of upside for vendors who have a good, attainable information governance solution set.
• The Hilton still leaves much to be desired as a host location. As they say, familiarity breeds contempt, and for those who’ve notched more than a handful of LegalTech shows, the venue can feel a bit like the movie Groundhog Day, but without Bill Murray. Speculation continues to run rampant about a move to the Javits Center, but the show would likely need to expand pretty significantly before ALM would make the move. And, if there ever was a change, people would assuredly think back with nostalgia on the good old days at the Hilton.
• Despite the bright lights and elevator advertisement trauma, the mood seemed pretty ebullient, with tons of partnerships, product announcements and consolidation. This positive vibe was a nice change after the last two years when there was still a dark cloud looming over the industry and economy in general.
• Finally, this year’s show also seemed to embrace social media in a way that it hadn’t done so in years past. Yes, all the social media vehicles were around in years past, but this year many of the vendors’ campaigns seemed to be much more integrated. It was funny to see even the most technically resistant lawyers log in to Twitter (for the first time) to post comments about the show as a way to win premium vendor swag. Next year, I’m sure we’ll see an even more pervasive social media influence, which is a bit ironic given the eDiscovery challenges associated with collecting and reviewing social media content.

Google had argued that the email was privileged under Upjohn Co. v. United States, asserting that the message reflected discussions about litigation strategy between a company engineer and in-house counsel. While acknowledging that Upjohn would protect such discussions, the court rejected that characterization of the email.  Instead, the court held that the email reflected a tactical discussion about “negotiation strategy” with Google management, not an “infringement or invalidity analysis” with Google counsel.

Getting beyond the core privilege issues, Google might have avoided this dispute had it withheld the eight earlier drafts of the email that it produced to Oracle. As we discussed in our previous post, organizations conducting privilege reviews should consider using robust, next generation eDiscovery technology such as email analytical software, that could have isolated the drafts and potentially removed them from production. Other technological capabilities, such as Near Duplicate Identification, could also have helped identify draft materials and marry them up with finals marked as privileged. As this case shows, in the fast moving era of eDiscovery, having the right technology is essential for maintaining a strategic advantage in litigation.

Issuing a Timely and Comprehensive Litigation Hold

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suspending Document Retention Policies

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

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

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

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

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

Managing the Document Collection Process

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

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

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

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

Using Proportionality to Dictate the Scope of Permissible Discovery

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

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

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

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

Leveraging eDiscovery Technologies for Search and Review

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

What has becoming increasingly common (and alarming at the same time) is the way this electronically stored information (ESI) is being obtained from third party service providers by the U.S. Government. Some of these requests were actually secret court orders; it is unclear how many of the matters were criminal or civil.  Many of these service providers (Sonic, Google, Microsoft, etc.) are challenging these requests and most often losing. They are losing on two fronts:  1) they are not allowed to inform the data owner about the requests, nor the subsequent production of the emails, and 2) they are forced to actually produce the information.  For example, the U.S. Government obtained one of these secret orders to get WikiLeaks volunteer Jacob Applebaum’s email contact list of the people he has corresponded with over the past two years.  Both Google and Sonic.net were ordered to turn over information and Sonic challenged  the order and lost.  This has forced technology companies to band together to lobby Congress to require search warrants in digital investigations.

There are three primary laws operating at this pivotal intersection that affect the discovery of ESI that resides with third party service providers, and these laws are in a car wreck with no ambulance in sight.  First, there is the antiquated Federal Law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, over which there is much debate at present.  To put the datedness of the ECPA in perspective, it was written before the internet.  This law is the basis that allows the government to secretly obtain information from email and cell phones without a search warrant. Not having a search warrant is in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution’s 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.  In the secret order scenario, the creator of data is denied their right to know about the search and seizure (as they would if their homes were being searched, for example) as it is transpiring with the third party.

Where a secret order has been issued and emails have been obtained from a third party service provider, we see the courts treating email much differently than traditional mail and telephone lines.  However, the intent of the law was to give electronic communications the same protections that mail and phone calls have enjoyed for some time. Understandably, the law did not anticipate the advent of the technology we have today.  This is the first collision, and the reason the wheels have gone off the car, since the standard under the ECPA sets a lower bar for email than that of the former two modes of communication.  The government must only show “reasonable grounds” that the records would be “relevant and material” to an investigation, criminal or civil, compared to the other higher standard.

The third law in this collision is the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  While certain exceptions and allowances are made for national security and in criminal investigations, these secret orders are not able to be seen by the person whose information has been requested.  Additionally, the public wants to see these requests and these orders, especially if they have no chance of fighting them.  What remains to be seen is what our rights are under FOIA to see these orders, either as a party or a non-related individual to the investigation as a matter of public record.  U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, (D-VT), the author of the ECPA, acknowledged in no uncertain terms that the law is “significantly outdated and outpaced by rapid changes in technology.”   He has since introduced a bill with many changes that third party service providers have lobbied for to bring the ECPA up to date. The irony of this situation is that the law was intended to provide the same protections for all modes of communication, but in fact makes it easier for the government to request information without the author even knowing.

This is one of the most important issues now facing individuals and the government in the discovery of ESI during investigations and litigation.  A third party service provider of cloud offerings is really no different than a utility company, and the same paradigm can exist as it does with the U.S. Postal Service and the telephone companies when looking to discover this information under the Fourth Amendment, where a warrant is required. The law looks to be changing to reflect this and FOIA should allow the public to access these orders.  Amendments to the Act have been introduced by Senator Leahy, and we can look forward to the common sense changes he proposes that are necessary.  The American people don’t like secrets. Lawyers, get ready to embrace the revisions into your practice by reading up on the changes as they will impact your practices significantly in the near future.