e-discovery 2.0

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).

When it comes to e-discovery projects, the debate about how to improve the Identification and Collection steps are often at the forefront. Why so? There are several factors – the gap between legal and IT, the desire to cut costs by using manual processes, and just not being aware of the risks involved. My colleague Dean Gonsowski’s recent post Manual Collections of ESI in Electronic Discovery Come under Fire discusses manual collections at lengthand what counsel needs to supplement it. The alternative is obviously to enable automated collections, which organizations may balk at, citing large technology and IT costs. In this post, I would like to examine the critical considerations and advantages of automating the collection process within an enterprise.

It is generally the case that with automation, you achieve a certain level of repeatability and quality control, which leads to better management of risks. In Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Properties Inc., 257 F.R.D. 418 (D.N.J. 2009), the opinion suggests that manual collections are permissible. However, is that a wise decision, considering the exposure that offered the plaintiffs in the case? A counter point is the Judge Shira Scheindlin’s Zubulake Revisited, Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montre­al Pension Plan v. Banc of America Sec. opinion that certain plaintiffs’ collection efforts warranted a sanction for spoliation of evidence because, among other defects, the plaintiffs relied solely on their employees to search and select what they believed to be responsive information without adequate attorney direction and supervision.

So, what are the critical elements and advantages of automating the collection process within an enterprise? Most important is closing the gap between legal and IT teams that are involved in the matter. The legal team is often involved at the start of an e-discovery project and hasthe insight into possible custodians who are potentialtargets of ESI collections. However, they have very little visibility into the information assets that actually belong to the named custodians. A key step in automation is identifying the custodians and their ESI. This is where legal teams and IT teams need to collaborate. Once this is completed, you now have the need to specify collection parameters and apply them methodically for all custodians in the context of a matter.

Specifying what to collect from a large IT infrastructure of a typical organization can be a daunting task. This is where automation steps need to account for variability in collection targets. Flexible specification of collection parameters is essential for consistent collections from varied data sources. As an example, desktops store documents in special folders that are unique for the type of desktop, and being able to specify collections of potentially relevant ESI from all systems and devices regardless of the type of device is very important.

An aspect of interest is the scope of collections for e-discovery purposes.While required for a small percentage of cases, typically criminal cases, the traditional approach of always using forensic tools to image disks is often too heavy handed. At the same time, applying keyword-level culling at the point of collection is also too granular. Keyword based filtering at the point of collection requires deep analysis of every possible file type, and such analysis would add large processing load on the system being collected. Moreover, such coarse level culling introduces significant risk of accidentally excluding relevant content. It is preferable to apply defensible filters such as well-known operating system files and application programs (such as from the NIST files), as well as date ranges and file types. Anything beyond that adds risk to your collections.

Another requirement during collections is securely transporting the collected ESI from one or more custodians into a preservation area for further analysis as well as for implementing a preservation hold. Again, given that collections are performed over a wide swath of systems, desktops, archives and message stores, some form of automation is critical, especially if you wish to maintain and prove defensibility. One challenge is collections from offsite laptops and fileshares in remote offices. You need flexible options to either collect to a local portable drive, or, if there is network connectivity, push the collection to a secure store, usually a remote file share.

A final step in the process is to accurately document who actually performed the collections, what was collected, and more importantly, what was not collected. By automating these steps, and by providing visibility and defensibility, one can increase collaboration between legal and IT teams with the end goal of successful collections. Automation, while decreasing costs will also reduce risk by making the process much more defensible. This is especially so if manual collections require supervision by experts for it to be defensible. Imagine the costs of sending your legal e-discovery expert with your IT staff for every collection station as suggested by Judge Scheindlin in Pension.

Judge Shira Scheindlin is famous for a number of things in her electronic data discovery opinions, but one notable aspect is her use of quotes to set the tone for her landmark decisions.  In Zubulake she quoted Cool Hand Luke (“What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.”) and in her latest opinion she quotes George Santayana (“[t]hose who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”).

Pension Committee of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan, et al., v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, et al. (“Pension Committee”) is generating a lot of buzz and reminds me of the Yogi Berra quote: “this is like déjà vu all over again” … particularly when thinking back to her landmark Zubulake decisions.  In this opinion, Judge Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York pens another potential electronic discovery classic, while simultaneously paying homage to her past opus.

Before we get into the “how” and “what” of the 85 page opinion, it’s probably reasonable to posit the “why” question, particularly when Judge Scheindlin and her team spent 300 hours on the mammoth undertaking.

“I, together with two of my law clerks, have spent an inordinate amount of time on this motion. We estimate that collectively we have spent close to three hundred hours resolving this motion. I note, in passing, that our blended hourly rate is approximately thirty dollars per hour (!) well below that of the most inexperienced paralegal, let alone lawyer, appearing in this case. My point is only that sanctions motions, and the behavior that caused them to be made, divert court time from other important duties-namely deciding cases on the merits.”

So, why was this fact pattern worthy of the inordinate amount of briefing time (regardless of the inconceivably low $9,000 fee)?  A skeptic might postulate that Judge Scheindlin has been out of the limelight lately, often being eclipsed by Judges Peck and Grimm.  It’s also been a year since her Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collins & Aikman Corp., opinion and it’s likely that she wanted to hearken back to the good ole Zubulake days, where she had the ear of the entire electronic discovery world.  Her tribute is less than subtle, as she even subtitles Pension Committee: “Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later.”

Less skeptically, however, she likely sees a host of matters rife with electronic data discovery disputes caused by the bar’s lack of e-discovery savvy.  It seems plausible that Pension Committee is a way for her to coalesce leanings from Zubulake (and beyond) into one, clear expression of legal duties.

Given the length of her opus, we won’t dissect the entire opinion as Ralph Losey did (chockablock with flying gerbils), but will instead focus in on the enduring and potentially controversial sections.  As way of background, the dispute at hand focused on claims by a group of investors who brought an action to recover losses of 550 million dollars stemming from the liquidation of two British Virgin Islands based hedge funds.  Unlike many typical e-discovery disputes, this instant action focused on the conduct of the plaintiffs as they attempted to deal with the often murky landscape of ESI preservation, collection and production.  Fortunately, Judge Scheindlin provided much needed foreshadowing to both readers and bloggers alike in her opening comments:

“Because this is a long and complicated opinion, it may be helpful to provide a brief summary up front. I begin with a discussion of how to define negligence, gross negligence, and willfulness in the discovery context and what conduct falls in each of these categories. I then review the law governing the imposition of sanctions for a party’s failure to produce relevant information during discovery. This is followed by factual summaries regarding the discovery efforts–or lack thereof–undertaken by each of the thirteen plaintiffs against whom sanctions are sought, and then by an application of the law to those facts. Based on my review of the evidence, I conclude that all of these plaintiffs were either negligent or grossly negligent in meeting their discovery obligations. As a result, sanctions are required.”

The finding of sanctions aside, Judge Scheindlin goes out of her way to crystallize duties and identify the type of conduct can cause an e-discovery breach.  Despite significant caveats about the fact intensive nature of each discovery dispute, she nevertheless proffers the following synthesis, which has caused no shortage of consternation amongst electronic discovery practitioners and commentators:

“After a discovery duty is well established, the failure to adhere to contemporary standards can be considered gross negligence. Thus, after the final relevant Zubulake opinion in July, 2004, the following failures support a finding of gross negligence, when the duty to preserve has attached:

• to issue a written litigation hold;
• to identify all of the key players and to ensure that their electronic and paper records are preserved;
• to cease the deletion of email or to preserve the records of former employees that are in a party’s possession, custody, or control;
• and to preserve backup tapes when they are the sole source of relevant information or when they relate to key players, if the relevant information maintained by those players is not obtainable from readily accessible sources.

[bullets added]

Assuming Pension Committee is followed beyond the bounds of the Southern District of New York, which is still speculative at this stage, it certainly means sleepless nights for corporate legal departments with litigation hold and preservation processes that are less than “contemporary.” While it’s hard to argue with the theoretical appropriateness of the above items, it’s questionable how practical these steps are, particularly for large enterprises that may have dozens (or hundreds) of litigation holds in place at any one point in time.  Multiply the numbers of holds times the disparate types of ESI and the complexities of the IT infrastructures and Judge Scheindlin’s seemly innocuous mandate can quickly become a tactical minefield, rife with sanctions possibilities.  Unfortunately, with the rapid proliferation of social media usage and cloud computing, this already complex paradigm is only going to become more vexing in the near term.

Given that the number of struggling enterprises is legion, it does certainly beg the question whether more folks than not can live up to this new “reasonableness” standard.  If not, this articulation may materially raise the bar and result in a demonstrable increase in spoliation motions, if that were possible.  Already, spoliation charges are often referred to as a “case within the case” by many, something which Judge Scheindlin reluctantly acknowledges.

“Finally, I note the risk that sanctions motions, which are very, very time consuming, distracting, and expensive for the parties and the court, will be increasingly sought by litigants. This, too, is not a good thing. For this reason alone, the most careful consideration should be given before a court finds that a party has violated its duty to comply with discovery obligations and deserves to be sanctioned. Likewise, parties need to anticipate and undertake document preservation with the most serious and thorough care, if for no other reason than to avoid the detour of sanctions.”

[Footnotes omitted]

Perhaps ratcheting up of the e-discovery standard of care can be rationalized as aspiration in nature.  Yet, it is hard to see how it reflects the actual business practices of many in corporate legal departments, particularly when the actions/inactions occurred (as in this case) several years ago when nascent notions about best practices were still evolving.

“The age of this case requires a dual analysis of culpability–plaintiffs’ conduct before and after 2005. The Citco Defendants contend that plaintiffs acted willfully or with reckless disregard, such that the sanction of dismissal is warranted.  Plaintiffs admit that they failed to institute written litigation holds until 2007 when they returned their attention to discovery after a four year hiatus. Plaintiffs should have done so no later than 2005, when the action was transferred to this District. This requirement was clearly established in this District by mid2004, after the last relevant Zubulake opinion was issued. Thus, the failure to do so as of that date was, at a minimum, grossly negligent.”

[Footnotes omitted]

Perhaps my biggest issue with this decision is that it (perhaps myopically) places an inordinate level of importance and awareness of the Zubulake decisions, particularly for those outside Judge Scheindlin’s district.  This lawsuit was initially brought in Florida and “[w]hile a duty to preserve existed in the Southern District of Florida at the time this action was filed, no court in the Eleventh Circuit articulated a ‘litigation hold’ requirement until 2007.”  In my mind, it hardly seems fair to retroactively imbue the Plaintiffs with this type of comprehension and duty.

At the end of the day, and despite quibbling with the equities involved, Judge Scheindlin has largely succeeded in moving the e-discovery ball forward.  The opinion will likely be one of the most widely read cases in 2010 and deservedly so since it describes with precision and clarity the burdens and penalties in the evolving area of ESI spoliation.  The main question will be to what extent will other jurisdictions adopt the same culpability framework and extend the reach of Pension Committee just as happened with the Zubulake line of cases.

Certainly, it could be “déjà vu all over again.”

Learn More On Litigation Support Software & Ediscovery Litigation.