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

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

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

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

Category 1: Specific Rule

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

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

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

Category 2: General Rule

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

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

Category 3: Sanctions-Based Rule

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

By comparing this year’s results to the 2007 survey, you get a sense for how much has changed in the e-discovery world over the past 12 months:

Top E-Discovery Software Companies

Note: arrows show change to rankings from last year’s Socha-Gelbmann Survey

Autonomy and Clearwell move up to the Top 5, overtaking Attenex and CT Summation which slip back to the second tier. There are also 3 new names ranked 6 through 10 (Epiq, iConect and Symantec) who displace Cataphora, Doculex, ISYS, and Oracle, none of whom even make it into the top 15. In other words, 70% of the rankings have changed since last year.

If a litigation support manager were to focus only on the Top 5 in making her ediscovery software decision, she would have a choice of some very different solutions. Autonomy positions itself as a high-end (expensive) platform for corporations, while Lexis offers a comprehensive toolset for law firms. Guidance and Clearwell are complementary in that both provide best-of-breed solutions for parts of the EDRM model: Guidance is the leader in collection and preservation, while Clearwell is the leader in processing, analysis and review. Finally, FTI takes a services-based approach which centers around RingTail, its hosted review application.

Looking lower down the list, there were some other interesting results, primarily around which companies were NOT ranked. Kazeon made it into the third tier (ranked 11-15) whereas StoredIQ, its main competitor, did not. Nor did Recommind break into the rankings, despite making a major push into e-discovery from knowledge management over the past year. But the most striking absentees are PSS Systems and Exterro, which have pioneered litigation hold management for Fortune 100 companies. I can only guess that they cover too much of niche market to warrant inclusion in an industry-wide report.

Top E-Discovery Service Providers

In contrast to the world of software, e-discovery services saw much less movement in this year’s rankings:

Note: arrows show change to rankings from last year’s Socha-Gelbmann Survey

There was only one change to the top 5: Fios moved up, displacing Guidance which plummeted 10-20 places down to a 16-25 ranking. In addition, there were two new players in the top 10, Epiq and Huron, who edged out Electronic Evidence Discovery and Ernst & Young.

Conclusion

Changes to the software rankings reflect broader changes in the litigation software market. As litigation discovery has moved in-house, corporations have become a major driver of purchase decisions that were previously left to law firms. Many software companies, such as Attenex, have struggled to make this transition, while others, such as Clearwell, have capitalized on it. There has been no such change in the service provider world and, as a result, the rankings are relatively stable.

It will be interesting to see what happens next year. Every other software space is dominated by a small number of players, like Oracle for databases or VMWare for virtualization. If the same is true for top ediscovery, then we can expect many fewer changes to the software rankings in future surveys as the leaders pull away from the pack.

Learn More On Litigation Support Software & Frcp Electronic Discovery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step one: Evaluate the Environment

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

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

Step two: Perform a Risk/Benefit Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

ⁱⁱⁱ Wired article, above.

Learn More On Litigation Support Software & Ediscovery Litigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To get a sense for how this might happen, just take a look at the CRM market. Ten years ago, Siebel and other packaged software vendors were among the fastest growing companies in America. Today, they are shrinking as customers migrate en masse to, for example, salesforce.com’s cloud-based approach. One Wall Street analyst I spoke to last week forecast that hosted (i.e., cloud-based) applications will grow their market share from 12% to 21% by 2011, and account for all growth in the market.

E-discovery is no exception to this mega-trend, and I expect a portion of the litigation software business to move to the cloud. How quickly this happens depends on how easy it is for companies to adopt cloud-based e-discovery solutions, which is why Google’s recent moves into e-discovery are so significant.

Google is by far the largest cloud computing company in the world. Its cloud-based Google Apps suite of applications was only launched in 2007, but is already being used by several hundred thousand businesses and, Google tells me, 2,000 new businesses sign up every day. Today, the customers are mainly small to medium sized businesses (500-5,000 employees). But as its functionality improves, larger companies will increasingly start asking why they should pay for Microsoft Office when cheaper alternatives exist.

Talking to Bill Kee, a product marketing manager at Google, it’s clear the biggest gap in Google Apps’ functionality was the lack of enterprise features around security, compliance, and e-discovery. That’s why Google acquired Postini, a leader in messaging security. It’s why Google recently launched Message Discovery, a hosted archive that comes bundled into Google Apps Premier Edition. And it’s why Google is collaborating with Clearwell to educate the market on cloud-based e-discovery solutions.

If you are interested in learning more about “e-discovery in the cloud”, register for a free webinar which we are hosting with Google on June 3.

Know more about Electronic Data Discovery & Electronic Discovery Litigation