e-discovery 2.0

In past blogs I’ve discussed a number of cases that have expressed skepticism over the self collection of electronically stored information (ESI) in the electronic discovery process.  In many of these cases, the reviewing judge or magistrate has looked at this process with an increasingly jaundiced eye, in some cases using the self collection component as part of its rationale for sanctions.

My conclusion up until now has been that this collection methodology (where employees manually select and potentially harvest their own data) could be defensible if properly executed; meaning with the requisite level of attorney guidance and oversight.  And, while this is still technically accurate, I think the pendulum has swung far enough to proclaim that this approach is simply far too dangerous for most enterprises, except perhaps those that are extremely risk tolerant.

While there was no particular straw that broke the camel’s back, the trend in the case law now seems to be moving inextricably in one direction – i.e., that self (or manual) collection is no longer safe enough for average enterprises.  Just like tight rope walking without a safety net, self collection protocols aren’t inherently doomed to failure, but there isn’t much (probably any) margin for error.

In the recent case of Green v. Blitz U.S.A., (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2011) we see yet another example of self collections gone awry.  In Green the Plaintiff sought to re-open her lawsuit despite a prior settlement, once she suspected that the defendant had failed to produce relevant ESI.  Finding that defendant had committed numerous discovery abuses, including not disclosing relevant evidence and failing to properly issue a litigation hold, the court put the hammer down, issuing a wide range of sanctions:

• Defendant had to pay plaintiff $250,000
• Defendant had to provide a copy of the court’s order to plaintiffs “in every lawsuit proceeding against it” for the past two years
• Defendant had to file the court’s order in every case that it is involved in for the next 5 years.

Self collection was again a material culprit in the culpable behavior.  It was revealed that the employee “solely responsible for searching for and collecting documents relevant to litigation” issued no litigation hold, conducted no electronic word searches for emails, and made no effort to speak with defendant’s IT department regarding how to search for electronic documents.  To exacerbate matters, the main individual in charge of collections was also closely tied to the research and development of the “flame arresters” that were at issue in this exploding gas can case.

Adding fuel to the fire (pun intended) was the fact that the responding company failed to locate or collect emails with the search term “flame arrester.”  The court went on to note that some of the smoking gun emails not only contained this “most obvious term to search for in electronic documents in this case”, but in fact “flame arrester” was used in the title of certain emails.

While folks have called this practice an example of a “fox guarding the henhouse,” in my mind it’s less that custodial bias renders self collection too risky for prime time.  While there are certainly examples like the Green case where bias likely was an issue, the bigger problem is that any significant reliance on custodians to direct a collection process (even a well supervised one) has too many failure points.  The most obvious (and innocent) scenario is where custodians simply can’t remember if they had responsive ESI or where such information might reside.  This problem can be particularly acute given the fact that litigation is almost always conducted in the rear view mirror.  Since I often can’t remember what I had for breakfast I don’t find it surprising that a custodian might not recall if they had data relating to a discrete issue 4-5 years ago.

As such, the contemporary “best practice” for the collection of ESI is quickly evolving past the old manual collection workflow.  Technology is rapidly making it quick and painless to conduct searches for blatantly relevant ESI (like emails with “flame arrester” in the title).  Not only can you conduct basic searches with existing technologies, but recent advancements around concept search and other analytical tools makes the failure to leverage these technologies seem that much more unreasonable.  For example, in the recent case of Northington v. H&M Int., (N.D. Ill. Jan. 12, 2011) the defendant was sanctioned, in part, because they didn’t search for minor misspellings of the plaintiff’s name.

When a court sees manual blunders like that in the Green case it’s not surprising to see such missteps cast as at least negligent and perhaps even more culpable.  This conclusion is made even easier when organizations like the Sedona Conference (in its Best Practices Commentary on the Use of Search and Information Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery) state:  “[i]n many settings involving electronically stored information, reliance solely on a manual search process for the purpose of finding responsive documents may be infeasible or unwarranted. In such cases, the use of automated search methods should be viewed as reasonable, valuable, and even necessary.”

Green is now the latest in a line of cases [See also, Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Properties Inc., (D.N.J. 2009) and Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Dell, Inc., (D. Utah 2009)] that have been highly critical of self collection efforts by individual custodians.  The better practice is to utilize technology to conduct collections from key players and perhaps leverage the custodians (and technology) to point out where relevant ESI might exist.  As such, a belt and suspenders approach is undoubtedly the safer way to go.  In this “dual protection” scenario “key custodians still search, identify, and self-collect what they think are relevant emails, but, as a fail safe, IT also collects all of the key custodians’ emails. Then attorneys search and identify relevant documents from this full, uncensored, unfiltered, collection. This double effort guards against the intentional and unintentional mistakes that can sometimes arise in self-collection.”

We know that electronic discovery is never going to be a perfect process, but self collections simply inject too much risk into an already complicated process.  Now is the time to change tactics and stop tight rope walking without a safety net.  After all, no enterprise wants to be the next to endure a highly publicized fall.

At Clearwell, we’re constantly ruminating on innovative ways to help make our customers’ e-discovery process more efficient. Given the astronomical growth of social gaming, we began asking ourselves, “How can we harness the power and passion of millions of social gamers for the greater good?”

Questions like this really get our engineers cooking, and what they came back with is, to steal a word from one of our most popular product launches a year ago, simply “magical”.

Starting today, Clearwell’s eDiscovery World leverages the red-hot consumer social gaming trend to provide dramatic and previously unattainable increases in e-discovery technology training and productivity. In fact, the promise of eDiscovery World is so great that we have added social gaming as a core part of our product architecture across all Clearwell modules, from legal hold through production.

And we’re not stopping there. We believe that strategic social gaming delivers such powerful benefits to a best practices e-discovery process, that we’ve proposed modifying the EDRM diagram to account for this critical new requirement for truly end-to-end discovery.

Prior to today, unstructured obsession with social gaming has actually been an obstacle keeping end-to-end e-discovery from becoming a reality in many organizations. Interviews conducted across law firms, service providers, and every major enterprise vertical indicate that the time spent protecting crops from withering and urban blight from descending upon virtual cities has left insufficient hours with which to implement next-generation electronic discovery technology. As a result, legal costs have continued to rise and the risk of sanctions has grown substantially. One Director of E-Discovery at a Fortune 100 company, when grilled about his organization’s failure to implement a robust legal hold process, pleaded, “Can you spare some Facebook credits so I can buy a chicken?”

Now, Clearwell has turned this challenge into a tremendous opportunity. In eDiscovery World, we provide an alternative to traditional social gaming that allows users to perform end-to-end e-discovery in a virtual environment – first in training mode to gain e-discovery process knowledge and experience, and then working with live documents and high-stakes cases. All stages of the e-discovery process are functional in the eDiscovery World environment, which is backed by a robust cloud computing platform able to support the largest and most complex cases. Best of all, in addition to the substantial productivity gains our beta customers have already achieved, many have even found their employees clamoring to forego significant portions of their salaries in order to earn precious Facebook credits, thus delivering dramatic cost savings for the organization.

eDiscovery World is truly a win-win, and we couldn’t be more excited about it. Enjoy!

In many ways sanctions cases are the lifeblood of the electronic discovery industry.  While the FRCP, Sedona Conference and EDRM are all out there as shining examples of what to do, it seems like more practitioners learn from the scared straight cases like Zubulake, Morgan Stanley, Pension Committee, etc.  Well, if you liked those horror stories, Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp. v. BC Tech., may certainly keep you up at night.

In this intellectual property (IP) case with copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, and associated claims, the court entered a number of discovery orders compelling both production and preservation. The court found that, despite these orders, a proper litigation hold was not issued until 19 months after the duty to preserve arose and thousands of files were deliberately deleted from five key players’ computers. Not surprisingly, the plaintiff moved for a finding of contempt and for terminating sanctions.

In this decision, Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba goes the extra mile in his initial opinion (which was upheld on appeal) to detail the defendant’s significant errors.  While it doesn’t quite rise to the maliciousness demonstrated in Victor Stanley 2 (by the “gang that couldn’t spoliate straight”), it still provides a textbook example of “worst” practices.

To begin, Magistrate Alba cites Pension Committee for the general notion that “[c]ourts cannot and do not expect that any party can meet a standard of perfection. Nonetheless, the courts have a right to expect that litigants and counsel will take the necessary steps to ensure that relevant records are preserved when litigation is reasonably anticipated, and that such records are collected, reviewed, and produced to the opposing party.”  Despite the early recognition that the electronic discovery process need not be perfect, he then uses most of the 48 page opinion to detail the parade of horrors committed by the defendant:

“BCT’s behavior, such as failing to timely issue a litigation hold, failing to follow up on that litigation hold, failing to request discovery documents from key employees, and so forth, reveals its intentional failure to meet discovery obligations and its flagrant disregard of the obvious great risk that it was highly probable the destruction of relevant documents would result from its behavior, and BCT’s conscious indifference to the consequences of that risk.”

Magistrate Alba honed in on the culpability analysis because terminating sanctions were being sought and the case law requires the judge to consider lesser sanctions before dismissing a case (“Because dismissal with prejudice ‘defeats altogether a litigant’s right to access to the courts,’ it should be used as ‘a weapon of last, rather than first, resort.’”).  The Defendant not surprisingly proffered a host of unpersuasive arguments about their behavior, attempting to portray many of the key player’s actions as merely inept and rogue.  Examples include:

• Employee “deleted files and folders for over 5 1/2 hours” and then started “loading five movies onto his computer” which comprised approximately twenty gigabytes of data, permanently overwriting the files recently deleted, eliminating the possibility of forensic recovery.
• Employee “deleted and intentionally wiped files from his computer” the day after Philips demanded his laptop be turned over.  He also “twice ran a Microsoft program called “’Cipher.exe’.”
• Employee deleted 97,000 files from his My Documents file, of that 41,000 were lost files covered up by AbsoluteShield (a file wiping program).

But, Magistrate Alba found the requisite scienter anyway, despite lacking express malice.  He held: “[b]ad faith, or culpability, ‘may not mean evil intent, but may simply signify responsibility and control.’” This control component was critical since the defendant attempted to convince the court that it did not have sufficient power over its employees during the legal hold and preservation process.

“BCT argues that it is not responsible for the ESI’s destruction because the executives and employees who destroyed the documents were acting individually and contrary to BCT’s express directives not to delete documents from their laptops.”

Magistrate Alba was not convinced:

“Also, other commonsense actions were not taken to preserve evidence, such as interviewing key employees, or even asking them to produce discoverable information. BCT appears to have been merely going through the motions rather than genuinely trying to preserve evidence since this method of communication was known to be unreliable and ineffective within the company; thus, BCT was not fulfilling its responsibility to diligently and thoroughly ensure that relevant documents were preserved. …  BCT’s sparse and ineffective communication with its employees does not relieve it of its responsibility of its employees’ actions in disobeying direct court orders and destroying massive numbers of electronic documents…. BCT is the party; it has the responsibility; it must follow the court’s orders. The justice system would break down if company employees could claim that they did not know about the court orders and simply disregard them.”

To further complicate the spoliation allegations, the timing of the deletions were extremely suspect (“almost all of the deletions took place a day or two before the BCT laptop computers in question were sent to be imaged”).  And, the number of the deletions were significant as well, with thousands of files that were forensically unrecoverable.

At the end of the day, the Defendants’ underlying incompetence was compounded by attempts to obscure the facts, ultimately dooming any shred of credibility.

“BCT’s dishonesty and efforts (perhaps even strategy) to hide and destroy ESI shred BCT’s credibility and reveal BCT’s overall contumacious and dishonest attitude toward this case, this court, and the system of justice. This inexcusable behavior and attitude greatly contribute to this court’s finding of bad faith. BCT must be excoriated for filing false sworn declarations, giving testimony riddled with lies and deceit, and making false representations to this court.”

These repeat offenses shut the door on any potential “do-over” with the Magistrate noting that the integrity of the judicial process cannot function when litigants so blatantly disregard their obligations.

“Civil litigation and discovery demand a level of integrity from the parties in order to properly function. When parties disregard that responsibility and/or ignore the court’s mandates, there must be strong consequences. Having examined the degree of prejudice to Philips, the interference with the judicial process, BCT’s culpability, whether BCT was warned in advance that its non-compliance may result in dismissal, and the efficacy of lesser sanctions, the court concludes that extreme sanctions are warranted in this case where discovery abuses of a serious magnitude involving bad faith and willful disregard of two direct court orders occurred.”

And, to pour further salt on the Defendant’s wound, the Magistrate recommended perjury sanctions for lying under oath:  “[I]n light of the above findings, the court recommends that this matter be referred to the United States Attorney’s Office for investigation and criminal prosecution.”

Searching for a singular takeaway amongst all the culpable behavior is a bit hard.  But certainly it is easy to point out that the Defendant’s legal hold process (and technology) was woefully behind the times.  If a litigant is going to utilize a manual, custodian based litigation hold process it needs to recognize the risks.  This isn’t to say that this type of approach won’t work, but an unsupervised process (via outside counsel) means that internal employees who may have something to hide can easily put their employer in the cross hairs, as was seen in Phillips.  Once files are destroyed, it’s not surprising to see an ensuing cover-up, and then terminating sanctions aren’t far behind.  We’ll see how many folks are scared straight by this latest horror story.

Surprisingly, a large percentage of the population has been captivated by what many characterize as a public melt down by Two and a Half Men star, Charlie Sheen. Following his well-publicized split with the show’s executive producer, Chuck Lorre, Sheen’s media interviews have been harder to avoid than cowboy hats at a Kenny Rogers concert. Regardless of whether or not you’re a pop-media junkie, fan of Two and a Half Men, or completely disinterested in the entire saga, it’s clear that many of Mr. Sheen’s ramblings have stirred controversy.

What do all Mr. Sheen’s seemingly random musings mean? Has he lost his mind? Is he pulling the wool over the eyes of the media by flawlessly executing the biggest Hollywood hoax in history? Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Sheen is a stealth e-discovery expert, secretly providing the legal community with a guide for handling litigation. Don’t agree? Well, maybe you’ll be a believer after reading my interpretation of how some of Mr. Sheen’s most popular quotes can serve as an e-discovery 101 guidebook.

“It was so gnarly I can’t remember.”

It’s hard to remember that the first Zubulake decision was penned by Judge Scheindlin long ago in 2003, but the gnarly $29.2 million jury verdict against UBS Warburg by a single plaintiff, in a fairly routine employment lawsuit, is one that most legal departments in Corporate America won’t soon forget.[1] Many industry experts feel the jury’s massive verdict could have been avoided if it wasn’t for repeated electronic discovery errors that resulted in the jury receiving an adverse jury instruction about UBS Warburg’s failure to produce emails. Eight years later, the incredible growth of electronic information continues to present e-discovery challenges for organizations, even though clearer guidelines have evolved.

“Sorry man, didn’t make the rules.”

Prior to Zubulake, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) did not squarely address the unique challenges of electronic evidence. Although she didn’t actually make the rules, Judge Scheindlin served as a member of the committee that helped draft the 2006 amendments to the FRCP. The amendments address many electronic evidence challenges faced by legal departments, and topics such as data sampling, proportionality, and data accessibility that were tackled in Zubulake, ultimately made their way into the notes or text of the amendments.

The amendments seek to minimize discovery disputes and provide clarity by, among other things, requiring parties to “discuss any issues about preserving discoverable information” and by outlining a protocol for dealing with electronically stored information (ESI) characterized as “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.”[2] Despite these guidelines, the rules are not always bright line instructions so the conduct of the parties is typically evaluated based on “reasonableness” standards when a discovery dispute arises. Some are lobbying for further clarification regarding issues such as when the duty to preserve electronic evidence is triggered and there seems to be a movement afoot that could lead to additional Rule amendments as evidenced by last year’s Civil Litigation Review Conference at Duke University.[3]

“Your perimeter’s been breached.  You got work to do bro.”

No lawyer wants to be responsible for having the organization’s perimeter breached as a result of data spoliation. However, failing to take proper data preservation steps continues to be the number one reason organization’s face e-discovery sanctions.[4] In Zubulake IV, Judge Scheindlin explained that an organization has work to do when it “reasonably anticipates” litigation since the anticipation of litigation is enough to trigger counsel’s duty to issue a litigation hold notice to employees.[5] The duty is easy to understand, but determining the “triggering” event and the best approach for preserving data can be challenging. To minimize the risk of spoliation, many organizations are moving away from using email notifications and spreadsheets to track when, who, how, and why employees are notified of a litigation hold in favor of more automated solutions and repeatable workflows. Automated solutions allow notices, reminders, and surveys to be created with easy-to-use templates and the “reasonableness” of the entire litigation hold process can be illustrated since reports can be automatically generated with the click of a button.

“I’ve got tiger blood and Adonis DNA”

Although the line between “reasonable” and “unreasonable” conduct can be very blurry in some cases, in other situations the offending party simply chooses to flagrantly disregard the rules as if they have tiger blood and Adonis DNA. For example, in Daylight, LLC v. Mobilight Inc., the Utah Appellate court upheld the lower court’s entry of a default judgment after defendants threw a laptop off a building, ran it over with a vehicle and stated: “if this gets us into trouble, I hope we’re prison buddies.”[6] Uh, sorry Charlie….

Typically, most parties are not so cavalier about disregarding their legal obligations and the judge’s decision to issue sanctions when evidence is lost or deleted is not a slam dunk. One challenge is that the 2006 FRCP Amendments allow litigants to request any “Electronically Stored Information” stored in “any medium” that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.[7] That means the scope of the duty to preserve, collect, and produce information as part of litigation may be very broad and very complicated, even though data growth continues to increase exponentially and corporate information technology systems continue to become increasingly complex.

To meet these burdens, many organizations are demanding technology solutions that do more than manage the legal hold process because they also need to collect, analyze, and review ESI to evaluate the case. The holy grail of e-discovery is being able to leverage a single technology solution to manage all these tasks as well as the litigation hold process. The value is twofold. First, automating e-discovery steps related to preservation and collection that have traditionally been managed manually minimizes the risk of human error and makes it easier to demonstrate a repeatable process that is defensible. Second, using the same technology solution to filter, analyze, and review key documents faster results in significant cost savings and strategic advantages.

“You make a choice to win, and you win”

Despite the fact that organizations continue to make e-discovery mistakes, smart organizations choose to leverage a combination of repeatable workflows and legal technology solutions to help them win. Although the new technological era we live in has created new discovery challenges, legal technology can be used to streamline data preservation, collection, processing, and review. Legal technology can also be used to quickly find important documentary evidence earlier in the case, thereby resulting in strategic advantages so smart organizations can “just keep winning.”

[2] See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)

[3] John G. Koeltl, 2010 Civil Litigation Review Conference Introduction: Progress in the Spirit of Rule 1, 60 Duke L.J. 537 (2010).

[4] See Dan H. Willoughby, Jr., Rose Hunter Jones, and Gregory R. Antine, SANCTIONS FOR E-DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS: BY THE NUMBERS, 60 Duke L.J. 789 (2010), at 803 stating (“FAILURE TO PRESERVE ESI IS THE MOST PREVALENT SANCTIONABLE CONDUCT”

[5] Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

[6] Daylight, LLC v. Mobilight Inc., 2011 UT App. 28 (2011)

[7] Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A).

The amazing thing about the litigation hold process is that everyone is doing it, but the vast majority of people are still doing it manually.

Every company in every case has a duty to preserve, and the only way to meet that obligation is to send out litigation hold notices, track responses, and monitor compliance. To help companies do this, software vendors like PSS (now part of IBM) and Exterro have had products on the market for years. But, despite being good applications with several happy customers, they have only been adopted by about 100-200 customers in aggregate, which is a tiny fraction of the thousands of companies struggling to manage the litigation hold process. Why the low penetration rate?

Well, it turns out there are several good reasons. First and foremost, these applications are expensive, and usually cost over $250K in software licenses, hardware, and implementation services. Second, they take a long time to deploy, often requiring services engagements lasting more than 6 months. Finally, they are pure workflow solutions which are disconnected from the data. That makes it hard to keep them up to date, and means you cannot use them for later stages of the e-discovery process such as collecting data or then processing it. So the audit trail, which is important for defensibility, is often incomplete, and there’s the real risk of “disconnects” between different phases of the e-discovery process.

At Clearwell, we find this type of situation – where there’s a clear market need that’s unaddressed by existing solutions – absolutely fascinating. It led us to ask: what if there was an inexpensive litigation hold solution that’s easy to deploy AND is tightly integrated with identification, collection, processing, ECA, and review? For the past few months, we’ve been working closely with a large number of our customers to answer that question. Our goal was to design a product that will meet the needs of the mass market, which today is still using spreadsheets to track its litigation holds.

The result is Clearwell’s new Litigation Hold Module, which we announced on Monday and is available this month. It brings Clearwell’s trademark ease-of-use and quick time-to-value to the preservation stage of EDRM, and enables customers to manage all their cases from cradle (preservation) to grave (production) within a single product. From the initial conversations with customers, the response has been incredibly positive. Prior to the product shipping, it has been purchased by CA Technologies, Exterran, Flowserve Corporation, and several others, with many more evaluating it for purchase this month. As with all our products, we offer free evaluations and I encourage anyone responsible for managing the litigation hold process to give it a try.

For those who are keeping count, this is Clearwell’s fourth module, all built as a single integrated product. We first came to market in 2006 with processing and ECA. In 2009, we expanded to the right of the EDRM model by adding a module for review and production. The following year, in 2010, we moved left (in EDRM terms) by releasing a module for identification and collection. Now in 2011, this new module for preservation and managing the litigation hold process completes the picture. It makes Clearwell the only fully integrated, end-to-end e-discovery product suite, since other vendors either offer a narrower product footprint or have cobbled together disparate products via acquisition.

Coming on the heels of Transparent Concept Search, this is our second major product announcement of the year – and there will be more to come. The product development team is bursting with new ideas, and we have a rich pipeline of new technologies and products slated for release in the coming months.

(Editor’s note: This special guest post was written by Teddy Cha, Clearwell Senior Product Manager, MIT alum, and coffee connoisseur. Teddy was a key member of the team that developed our Legal Hold Module and has worked tirelessly with our engineering team and lead customers to bring the product to market. – Kurt)

Legal hold is a critical first step to any e-discovery process, but as recent experience has shown, enterprises are still struggling to perform them in a defensible and repeatable way. A judicial warning was heard as early as 2003 with Judge Sheindlin’s ruling in Zubulake v. UBS (and most recently in Pension Committee).  The need for change is not coming from only a single judge, however.  In 2010, the Duke Law Journal studied the level of sanctions compared to previous years and found that:

1. Sanctions are at an all-time high (up 271% since 2005)
2. Damages were as high as almost $9 million
3. The most common misconduct was the failure to preserve data

Sending legal hold notices can start out simple, but it can quickly become unwieldy if not managed correctly. It’s like taxes. Everybody has to do them, and it typically starts out as a “simple” process. But as your assets grow, you may want to invest in more complex software or an online service to maintain efficiency. And once you start a family (or a small business), you’ll need to graduate to a much more robust process.

As companies grow their legal hold process evolves in the same way. Their progression can be described in the following distinct three stages:

Stage 1: Manual Legal Hold Process

Sending a litigation hold notification is as easy as…well, sending an email. But tracking these litigation matters and their responses in spreadsheets quickly grows out of hand once a poor paralegal has to manage a 10th, 20th and 50th simultaneous legal matter (or even multiple holds in a single case).  This manual process is difficult to repeat, error-prone, and likely doesn’t reflect the real-time status of compliance the second the spreadsheet is saved. Typical corporations are concurrently managing hundreds active legal holds, involving thousands of custodians, across multiple business units and groups. It becomes quickly apparent that a better solution is required.

Stage 2: Stand-Alone Legal Hold Software

Legal Hold solutions have been in the marketplace for a number of years. Typically they fall into two categories:

1. Matter Management or Information Governance systems that help enterprises construct workflows and integrate record management policies and controls. Legal Hold notification capabilities are an appended component to these ambitious and holistic solutions. These systems are typically expensive and have long implementation cycles.
2. Narrowly focused offerings aimed at managing just legal hold notification and survey tracking. These solutions typically cost less than the above and are delivered as a hosted service (SaaS).

Stand-alone legal hold software products are certainly an improvement on the Stage 1 manual process. But despite virtually all major enterprises needing some sort of legal hold process, they have not yet raced to embrace these Stage 2 solutions yet. Why not?

Following a typical e-discovery case quickly uncovers the problem. Sending and tracking legal holds is a necessary part of the e-discovery process, but it is only the first step. Soon after custodians are notified of their obligation, e-discovery teams must separately collect, process, analyze, review, and produce that data using other solutions. Stage 2 legal hold solutions are stuck just managing the holds.

This is where purchasing a stand-alone legal hold solution is a bit like buying an iPhone without the network plan: You can’t really do much with it (well, you could play Angry Birds, but only if you download it over a WiFi connection). You can’t obtain your goal of mobile communication without a phone and a network plan.

Stage 3: Integrated Legal Hold Software

To address to drawbacks of Stage 2, many companies today are looking for a more integrated approach – one that marries legal hold with the rest of the e-discovery process. This is where Clearwell’s new solution can help. Once custodians have acknowledged the legal hold notice, Clearwell can immediately reach across the enterprise network and collect those custodians’ data. Once the data is collected, a few clicks of the mouse prepare it for early case assessment (ECA), analysis, and review.

As any experienced corporate IT and legal executive will tell you, such a comprehensive solution has long been promised, but has not come with fast implementation (i.e., up and running in a day), ease of use (i.e., no training required), or in a single platform  (i.e., one login for users and no exporting or importing of data between e-discovery phases). With this in mind, we are delighted to announce the Clearwell Legal Hold Module, now available as part of the Clearwell E-Discovery Platform. Combined with Clearwell’s Identification & Collection, Processing & Analysis, and Review & Production modules, companies can now leverage a truly integrated e-discovery solution to lower the cost and risks of e-discovery. Key features of the new Module include:

• Hold Notices: Hold notices can be quickly created and sent to relevant custodians and system administrators via email. Different notices can be sent to custodians and system administrators, streamlining the notification process. Notices can be sent immediately or scheduled for delivery.
• Auto-Reminders and Auto-Escalations:  Reminders and escalation notices can be scheduled for delivery to non-responsive custodians, eliminating the need for manual follow-up.
• Custodian Surveys: Surveys containing single-choice, multiple-choice, or free form text questions can be created and issued to key custodians so administrators can easily capture information critical to a case, thereby expediting the interview process. Surveys can also be saved as templates to the Notice Library and reused.
• Automated Tracking and Reporting: Administrators have immediate visibility into the status of all legal hold notices across all cases through a single pane of glass. Administrators can drill-down by case to view the status across all custodians, including those who have received and responded to their hold notices, and those who haven’t.

Until today, corporations have been making do with manual or stand-alone legal hold solutions that are neither scalable nor integrated with the rest of the e-discovery process, assuming more and more risk and incurring greater costs – never an ideal combination. Fortunately, it no longer needs to be that way.

(Teddy Cha is a Senior Product Manager at Clearwell Systems and the lead Product Manager for Clearwell’s Legal Hold and Identification & Collection Modules.)

Just as when Judge Scheindlin penned Pension Committee, her latest opinion is already garnering a ton of buzz.  In Nat. Day Laborer Org. Network v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (“NDLON”), 2011 WL 381625 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2011) Judge Scheindlin boldly takes on four governmental agencies (ICE, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Office of Legal Counsel) over metadata production in response to FOIA demands.

In NDLON Plaintiffs submitted identical twenty-one page FOIA requests to each of the four defendant agencies.  And, after some initial missed deadlines and judicial intervention, Plaintiffs sent the defendants a proposed protocol that requested a specific format for the production of electronic records.  Significantly, the proposed protocol was based on the “format demands routinely made by two government entities-the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice Criminal Division” (invoking the old “good for the goose” argument).

Before ruling on the protocol, Judge Scheindlin examined the parties’ efforts to cooperate and she was uniformly underwhelmed:

“As far as I can tell from the record submitted by the parties, the equivalent of a Rule 26(f) conference, at which the parties are required to discuss form of production, was not held and no agreement regarding form of production was ever reached. Nor was a dispute regarding form of production brought to the Court for resolution.”

In evaluating controlling law, the fact that “[n]o federal court has yet recognized that metadata is part of a public record as defined in FOIA” didn’t stop Judge Scheindlin from looking to both state law and the FRCP for guidance.  Next, she relied on Aguilar, which noted that the Sedona Conference abandoned an earlier presumption against the production of metadata in recognition of “‘the need to produce reasonably accessible metadata that will enable the receiving party to have the same ability to access, search, and display the information as the producing party ….’”  She then foreshadowed her subsequent ruling by concluding: “[b]y now, it is well accepted, if not indisputable, that metadata is generally considered to be an integral part of an electronic record.”

The Government, not surprisingly didn’t go down without a fight, arguing that “metadata is substantive information that must be explicitly requested and then reviewed by an agency for possible exemptions.”  In concert they also claimed that “if the requirements of FOIA and the requirements of the Rules conflict, FOIA must trump the Rules.”  Judge Scheindlin wasn’t persuaded, holding that:

“[T]here is no need to decide this question because FOIA does not conflict with the Rules. FOIA is silent with respect to form of production, requiring only that the record be provided in ‘any form or format requested by the person if the record is readily reproducible by the agency in that form or format.’… Defendants’ productions to date have failed to comply with Rule 34or with FOIA.”

In terms of the remedy for the government’s failure, she did cut them some slack:  “Because no metadata was specifically requested in Plaintiffs’ July 23 e-mail, and because this is an issue of first impression, I will not require Defendants to re-produce all of the records with metadata.”  But for future productions she held that the bulk of the ESI be produced in “TIFF image format but with corresponding load files, Bates stamping, and the preservation of “parent-child” relationships (i.e. the association between an attachment and its parent record)” citing the metadata list below for non-email files.

1. Identifier
2. File Name
3. Custodian
4. Source Device
5. Source Path
6. Production Path
7. Modified Date
8. Modified Time
9. Time Offset Value

So, here’s the rub.  The legal populous, not surprisingly, likes bright line rules.  So, when Judge Scheindlin writes (in Footnote 41):  “[w]hile not necessary to the holding in this case, I believe that these are the minimum fields of metadata that should accompany any production of a significant collection of ESI” it’s easy to see how the above nine fields may become a blunt instrument wielded haphazardly by requesting parties.   Not surprisingly, Judge Scheindlin is aware of her mantle and further tries to caveat her holding (in footnote 44):

“To be clear, my Order requiring the use of this Proposed Protocol for future productions-as amended by the specific metadata fields I have required and by the options I have offered the parties regarding the form of production for spreadsheets-is limited to this case. I am certainly not suggesting that the Proposed Protocol should be used as a standard production protocol in all cases. The production of individual static images on a small scale, where no automated review platform is likely to be used, may be perfectly reasonable depending on the scope and nature of the litigation.

The impact of footnote 44 was top of mind when I recently spoke to Fmr. Judge Ron Hedges who chimed in:

“Attorneys must confer with regard to production requirements, as they should before bringing any dispute before a federal court. Moreover, attorneys should recognize that, as Judge Scheindlin said in footnote 44, that the selection of metadata fields to request are case-dependent.  Any attempt to arrive at a ‘universal’ or ‘bright line’ standard for production of metadata ignores the text of Rule 34(b) and the bargaining that occurs in meets-and-confers, and the unique aspects of individual civil actions.”

Despite agreeing with Judge Hedges’ sentiment, the main question in my mind will be whether footnote 44 is given its due weight going forward.  My concern is that, as is oft discussed with her Pension Committee decision, parties may hone in on the bright line test and miss the nuances.  While it’s easy to argue against the folly of this thinking, it may not stop it from happening in the near term.

Finally, in another shout out to the Cooperation Proclamation, Judge Scheindlin takes a swipe at counsel, who forced her to rule on an “e-discovery issue that could have been avoided had the parties had the good sense to ‘meet and confer,’ ‘cooperate’ and generally make every effort to ‘communicate’ as to the form in which ESI would be produced.”

“The quoted words are found in opinion after opinion and yet lawyers fail to take the necessary steps to fulfill their obligations to each other and to the court. While certainly not rising to the level of a breach of an ethical obligation, such conduct certainly shows that all lawyers-even highly respected private lawyers, Government lawyers, and professors of law-need to make greater efforts to comply with the expectations that courts now demand of counsel with respect to expensive and time-consuming document production. Lawyers are all too ready to point the finger at the courts and the Rules for increasing the expense of litigation, but that expense could be greatly diminished if lawyers met their own obligations to ensure that document production is handled as expeditiously and inexpensively as possible. This can only be achieved through cooperation and communication.”

In the end, NDLON will continue to generate a ton of discussion (as did Zubulake and Pension Committee).  While this decision won’t single-handedly end the metadata discussion it will hopefully serve as a launching point for more clarity down the road.  For this, practitioners on both sides of the debate should be thankful.

When confronted with an almost impossible data analysis problem, a tried and true technique to solve it has been the use of sampling. The mathematical analysis behind sampling is something that has been studied for quite a number of years. Also, sampling has also been put into practice for well over seventy years, in many fields from predicting results of elections and assessing quality of electric bulbs. Why not do the same for certifying your ESI productions, while also addressing defensibility and reasonableness?

Sampling as a way to assess quality is something the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) Search Group authors covered in detail, with a strategy in a comprehensive EDRM Search Guide (see Section 9.5 and Appendix 2). And, while much of that work is still to hit the mainstream litigation scene as a general practice, I was pleasantly surprised to see it receive attention from a fellow blogger and litigator, Nick Brestoff, who highlighted this in a very thoughtfully crafted article in Law.com, titled A Strategy to Sample All the ESI You Need. I commend his article for helping the community understand the practical difficulties in getting a certifiable result that attorneys can stand behind. And, it is highly likely that the current practice is to certify your electronic discovery without a real measure of validity behind it.

That leads us to back to the mechanics of sampling, the math behind it, and its defensibility. As the EDRM Search Guide notes, meaningful sampling can only be done by the one who has the data, i.e., the producing party. While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures (FRCP) Rule 26(a) lists required disclosures as well as signing and certification guidelines per Rule 26 (g), there is no agreed upon way to specify sampling parameters as well as the results of sampling.It is in this context, Nick Brestoff’s article is significant – it explores practical ways in which the producing party can shift the sampling mechanics to the requesting party. I do think, however,that there is a logistical problem with this–most litigators will balk at producing the largely irrelevant and non-responsive items to the other side.

Perhaps the real need is for the requesting party to specify in their Rule 26 (b) meet and confer, that the production be certified for completeness by also including a statement on sampling and its results. A simple request such as, “Sample the data for 98% confidence level and 2% error rate, and report the number of responsive documents” could be sufficient. The producing side can perform random sampling, per the sampling goals for the above request, selecting 13526 documents (based on the sampling table of EDRM Search Guide). This allows the attorneys representing the producing party to certify and sign off on an agreed-upon target.

In addition to the EDRM Search Guide, The Sedona Conference, Working Group Commentary, Achieving Quality in the E-Discovery Process is an indispensable resource for understanding the role of sampling. This paper discusses at length, several sampling methods, their applicability for various purposes, including certifying that the results meet a certain quality criteria. In addition, a number of electronic discovery cases have mentioned sampling as a way of overcoming the explosion of data volumes.A primary application of sampling is for evaluating proportionality claims, something that has moved from a simple assertion into an informed argument, with specificity on proving cost burden. Let’s examine a few.

Referring to the well-known Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, F.R.D. 280, the courts ordered the producing party in Makrakis v. Demelis, No. 09-706-C, 2010 WL 3004337 (July 13, 2010) to essentially sample just a small number of backup tapes, at the expense of the requesting party. This is also remarkable in the cost-shifting of processing and reviewing of the sample, however small, to the requesting party. Such measures, while reducing the costs of overall e-discovery, places a greater burden on sample selection to the requesting party, forcing them to apply the reasonableness evaluation.

In Barrera v. Boughton, 2010 WL 3926070 (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2010), the court ruled that a phased approach to ESI discovery is appropriate and quotes an earlier case, S.E.C v. Collins & Aikman Corp, 256 F.R.D. 403, 418 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), that “[t]he concept of sampling to test both the cost and the yield is now part of the mainstream approach to electronic discovery.” The sampling recommendation in this instance was both a reduction of number of custodians from forty to three, as well as a significant reduction in the date range for the search. What was initially a $60,000 ESI search and discovery effort was reduced drastically to under $13,000.

Similarly, sampling is suggested in both M. Adams & Assoc., L.L.C. v. Fujitsu Ltd., No. 1:05-CV-64, 2010 WL 1901776, and Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Felman Prod., Inc. as a way to perform a small set of search terms on a smaller number of custodians so as to get a sense for the larger electronic discovery costs.Clearone Communications v. Chiang offers another example of sampling by the use of Boolean logic to combine more common search terms thereby avoiding over-inclusiveness.

Per the Sedona commentary definitions, this type of sampling is referred to as “judgmental sampling” wherein the practitioner has a general sense of which of the several custodians and date range is most likely to offer the greatest yield. As judgmental sampling becomes more widely adopted as a way of controlling costs, electronic discovery sampling can embrace the benefits of statistical sampling as well. It is a natural next step, as even with narrow sampling criteria of judgmental sampling, the cost of review can be high. One area where statistical sampling has an advantage is that quantifiable measures of error and confidence intervals are possible, while judgmental sampling has no such formal measurement. Again, if the requesting party wishes to ensure a level of completeness and quality and if the producing party needs a basis for certifying their productions, statistical sampling can be a powerful aid.

Many organizations involved in litigation, investigations, or audits struggle to meet deadlines for collecting and producing electronically stored information (ESI) from employees without breaking the budget.  The biggest challenges are typically faced by large organizations with multiple offices and large numbers of employees.  However, even smaller organizations with few offices face challenges if they have remote employees or employees who travel frequently, aka road warriors.  In this first of a two-part series, I’ll discuss when and why organizations should choose a manual collection process.  Part two will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of two automated data collection approaches.

In each situation, the organization is faced with a request for ESI and some portion of the potentially relevant ESI is located in remote offices or on laptops used by road warriors.  Preserving and collecting ESI across multiple systems such as email and file servers, archival systems, Microsoft SharePoint, and personal computers can be challenging whether these systems are located centrally or in the cloud.  Common challenges include:

• Pressing deadlines
• Risk of data loss or deletion
• Failure to produce responsive data without legal justification
• Lack of information technology (IT) department resources
• Miscommunication between the IT and legal departments

These challenges are compounded for organizations with remote offices or road warriors because more coordination and effort is inevitably required, thereby increasing expenses and the risk of failure.   The key to success is determining which data collection approach is best for your organization.  First, let’s discuss the traditional manual approach.

The Traditional Manual Approach

There are two different manual data collection approaches that organizations utilize with varying degrees of success.  Employee self-collection and IT assisted collection.

Employee Self-Collection

The various data collection approaches often begin as part of an investigation, litigation, or audit that requires the identification of employees likely to have data relevant to a particular matter.   Those employees, or data custodians as they’re called, are asked to forward or copy any relevant ESI they possess to a centralized location or storage device where the data is stored for later analysis and review by the legal team.  One problem with this approach is that copying files could result in metadata information such as document dates being altered.  Another problem with this approach is that custodian’s memories fade over time and they may forget to produce relevant ESI.  Even worse, a custodian with a personal stake in the investigation may intentionally delete the very files being requested in an effort to thwart the investigation.  These scenarios could result in the organization facing sanctions or penalties, making employee self-collection a potentially risky and costly approach in almost any situation involving multiple custodians, offices, or large amounts of data.

IT Assisted Collections

The IT assisted collection approach is another manual approach that eliminates some of the risks associated with the employee self-collection method, but this approach often presents different challenges and often leads to “over collection” of ESI.  Typically one or more employees in the IT or IT Security Department are instructed to collect data from employees believed to have information relevant to a particular case.  To avoid overlooking or losing data, the IT resources collect data from numerous locations using computers loaded with specialized collection software.   Data to be collected from each relevant employee often resides on numerous devices including laptops, desktops, file servers, email servers, and other sources.   Once all the data for each custodian is collected from each data source, the data is copied and consolidated to a removable hard drive or drives where it awaits future processing, analysis, and review by the legal department.   Unfortunately for the IT department, this entire process is repeated for every new case and often results in a significant loss of productivity.

IT assisted collections were once the norm because this process was thought to represent the most efficient and effective way to avoid the risk of sanctions posed by the employee self-collection approach.   However, this approach is quickly falling out of vogue for two reasons:

First, IT assisted collections can increase the time, cost, and risk associated with data collection because the use of different technology tools can be challenging.   Organizations applying the IT assisted collection approach typically rely on off-the-shelf software such as Guidance Encase, Robocopy, ExMerge, Access Data’s Forensic Toolkit (FTK) or other tools to collect data from each relevant custodian. Frequently, different tools are utilized to collect data from different data sources.  For example, it is not uncommon for the IT department to use ExMerge to collect from Microsoft Exchange, Robocopy to collect from file servers, Encase to collect from laptops and desktops, and even other proprietary tools to collect data found in commonly used archives.  In addition to being time consuming, utilizing multiple tools to collect and consolidate data results in licensing, training, and maintenance costs for each product and the risk of data loss or alteration is heightened since data collected from multiple tools must eventually be exported and consolidated for further processing, analysis, and review.  Lastly, using multiple IT staff with varying levels of expertise to collect data arguably increases the risk of metadata being altered and complicates the ability to maintain accurate chain of custody logs.  In practice, many organizations using multiple collection tools spend countless hours trying to manually maintain chain of custody reports using Excel spreadsheets while other organizations simply neglect or ignore chain of custody requirements.  Each of these situations virtually invites evidentiary attacks by savvy opponents.

The second reason IT assisted collections are falling into disfavor is because the approach often results in the over collection of data.  To avoid the risk of sanctions or penalties resulting from data loss or deletion, sometimes entire laptop and desktop hard drives are copied or “imaged” (frequently called a “forensic image”).  Similarly, IT resources are often incentivized to “copy everything” simply to avoid being forced to revisit data sources from which data has already been partially collected in response to a new request for information.

The IT assisted approach of forensically imaging drives can be effective in limited situations including criminal investigations and intellectual property theft cases since these matters sometimes require the recovery and analysis of deleted files, internet browsing history, and other non-user generated files for a discreet number of custodians.  However, since most large matters do not require this degree of data recovery for most data sources, unnecessarily collecting data by making forensic images often results in a significant waste of time and money.

Which Approach is Right for Your Organization?

The risks and expenses associated with both manual approaches described above are often so high that organizations sometimes decide it is economically more efficient to settle lawsuits even when the lawsuit lacks merit.  This untenable position has led many organizations to seek more efficient and repeatable methods to manage data collection that are automated.  These automated approaches will be explored in my next post.

Last fall, when Transparent Concept Search was still in development, we showed an early version of it to a group of our customers. Their excitement was palpable, and they spent most of our session together comparing notes about the varied ways they will use it. But at the end of the discussion, one of them asked the question which was on everyone’s mind: “how much will you charge for it?”, or as someone else immediately said “I get charged $200/GB for plain vanilla concept search, so how much of a premium do you think you will get for this?”

Our answer surprised them: there’s no charge. Transparent Concept Search is included in Clearwell for free. Here’s why doing that makes sense:

There are two business strategies in the technology industry which are proven to work. One is to be the low-cost provider and compete on price. These companies, such as Chinese PC manufacturers, do not spend anything on R&D or marketing. Instead, they ruthlessly squeeze out cost savings and pass them on to their customers. The other proven strategy is to be the innovation-leader, whereby you continually delight customers by giving them more and more functionality at the existing price. Players following this strategy are never the cheapest, since they charge a little extra to fund new product development. For example, iPhone is by no means the cheapest smart phone, but its price did not go up when, with the iPhone 4, Apple added video, a forward-facing camera, better battery life, and a retina display.

It is worth noting that either strategy can work, and companies sometimes move between the two, although making that transition is incredibly hard. Staying in the PC industry, Dell started as the low cost provider, but has more recently tried to move up the value chain by investing more in the design of its products. The results, so far, have been mixed.

At Clearwell, our strategy is to be the innovation leader in e-discovery software. We tackle really hard technical problems, solve them in innovative ways, and then seek to delight our users by providing them with breakout, new capabilities at no incremental cost. Transparent Concept Search is a perfect example of this.

Rather than just integrate with concept analysis plug-ins, as pretty much every review platform does, we asked ourselves: if we were to create concept search from scratch specifically for e-discovery, what would we build? As part of that process, we tapped into the latest academic research in semantic analysis coming out of UCLA, University of Pittsburgh, and other universities, and discovered that it offers a solution to the biggest single problem users have with concept search: the heavy computational burden traditional approaches require. By using a variation of the semantic space model which is explained in that new research rather than, say, latent semantic indexing, we can deliver concept searching to much larger legal matters.

Beyond the core technology, we also wanted to change the user experience, by bringing the same level of visibility and control that our users enjoy in keyword search to this domain. Our goal is to enable users to balance both precision and recall in a way that was not previously possible. The result – Transparent Concept Search – is completely seamless within Clearwell in a way that simply cannot be matched by concept search plug-ins to a review platform, which are essentially two separate products from two separate vendors. In summary, it’s a vastly superior user experience – at no incremental cost.

This is the first of many things you will see from us this year. Our team could not be more excited about the new products and ideas that we have in the pipeline.