e-discovery 2.0

The Honorable Andrew J. Peck, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York, issued an opinion and order (order) on February 24th in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, stating that computer-assisted review in eDiscovery is “acceptable in appropriate cases.”  The order was issued over plaintiffs’ objection that the predictive coding protocol submitted to the court will not provide an appropriate level of transparency into the predictive coding process.  This and other objections will be reviewed by the district court for error, leaving open the possibility that the order could be modified or overturned.  Regardless of whether or not that happens, Judge Peck’s order makes it clear that the future of predictive coding technology is bright, the role of other eDiscovery technology tools should not be overlooked, and the methodology for using any technology tool is just as important as the tool used.

Plaintiffs’ Objections and Judge Peck’s Preemptive Strikes

In anticipation of the district court’s review, the order preemptively rejects plaintiffs’ assertion that defendant MSL’s protocol is not sufficiently transparent.  In so doing, Judge Peck reasons that plaintiffs will be able to see how MSL codes emails.  If they disagree with MSL’s decisions, plaintiffs will be able to seek judicial intervention. (Id. at 16.)  Plaintiffs appear to argue that although this and other steps in the predictive coding protocol are transparent, the overall protocol (viewed in its entirety) is not transparent or fair.  The crux of plaintiffs’ argument is that just because MSL provides a few peeks behind the curtain during this complex process, many important decisions impacting the accuracy and quality of the document production are being made unilaterally by MSL.  Plaintiffs essentially conclude that such unilateral decision-making does not allow them to properly vet MSL’s methodology, which leads to a fox guarding the hen house problem.

Similarly, Judge Peck dismissed plaintiffs’ argument that expert testimony should have been considered during the status conference pursuant to Rule 702 and the Daubert standard.  In one of many references to his article, “Search, Forward: will manual document review and keyword searches be replaced by computer-assisted coding?” Judge Peck explains:

“My article further explained my belief that Daubert would not apply to the results of using predictive coding, but that in any challenge to its use, this Judge would be interested in both the process used and the results.” (Id. at 4.)

The court further hints that results may play a bigger role than science:

“[I]f the use of predictive coding is challenged in a case before me, I will want to know what was done and why that produced defensible results. I may be less interested in the science behind the “black box” of the vendor’s software than in whether it produced responsive documents with reasonably high recall and high precision.” (Id.)

Judge Peck concludes that Rule 702 and Daubert are not applicable to how documents are searched for and found in discovery.  Instead, both deal with the” trial court’s role as gatekeeper to exclude unreliable testimony from being submitted to the jury at trial.” (Id. at 15.)  Despite Judge Peck’s comments, the waters are still murky on this point as evidenced by differing views expressed by Judges Grimm and Facciola in O’Keefe, Equity Analytics, and Victor Stanley.  For example, in Equity Analytics, Judge Facciola addresses the need for expert testimony to support keyword search technology:

“[D]etermining whether a particular search methodology, such as keywords, will or will not be effective certainly requires knowledge beyond the ken of a lay person (and a lay lawyer) and requires expert testimony that meets the requirements of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.” (Id. at 333.)

Given the uncertainty regarding the applicability of Rule 702 and Daubert, it will be interesting to see if and how the district court addresses the issue of expert testimony.

What This Order Means and Does not Mean for the Future of Predictive Coding

The order states that “This judicial opinion now recognizes that computer-assisted review is an acceptable way to search for relevant ESI in appropriate cases.” (Id. at 2.)  Recognizing that there have been some erroneous reports, Judge Peck went to great lengths to clarify his order and to “correct the many blogs about this case.” (Id. at 2, fn. 1.)  Some important excerpts are listed below:

The Court did not order the use of predictive coding

“[T]he Court did not order the parties to use predictive coding.  The parties had agreed to defendants’ use of it, but had disputes over the scope and implementation, which the Court ruled on, thus accepting the use of computer-assisted review in this lawsuit.” (Id.)

Computer-assisted review is not required in all cases

“That does not mean computer-assisted review must be used in all cases, or that the exact ESI protocol approved here will be appropriate in all future cases that utilize computer-assisted review. (Id. at 25.)

The opinion should not be considered an endorsement of any particular vendors or tools

“Nor does this Opinion endorse any vendor…, nor any particular computer-assisted review tool.” (Id.)

Predictive coding technology can still be expensive

“MSL wanted to only review and produce the top 40,000 documents, which it estimated would cost $200,000 (at $5 per document). (1/4/12 Conf. Tr. at 47-48, 51.)”

Process and methodology are as important as the technology utilized

“As with keywords or any other technological solution to eDiscovery, counsel must design an appropriate process, including use of available technology, with appropriate quality control testing, to review and produce relevant ESI while adhering to Rule 1 and Rule 26(b )(2)(C) proportionality.” (Id.)

Conclusion

The final excerpt drives home the points made in a recent Forbes article involving this and another predictive coding case (Kleen Products).  The first point is that there are a range of technology-assisted review (TAR) tools in the litigator’s tool belt that will often be used together in eDiscovery, and predictive coding technology is one of those tools.  Secondly, none of these tools will provide accurate results unless they are relatively easy to use and used properly.  In other words, the carpenter is just as important as the hammer.  Applying these guideposts and demanding cooperation and transparency between the parties will help the bench usher in a new era of eDiscovery technology that is fair and just for everyone.

The other shoe dropped in the Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe case this week as the plaintiffs filed their objections to a preliminary eDiscovery order addressing predictive coding technology. In challenging the order issued by the Honorable Andrew J. Peck, the plaintiffs argue that the protocol will not provide an appropriate level of transparency into the predictive coding process. In particular, the plaintiffs assert that the ordered process does not establish “the necessary standards” and “quality assurance” levels required to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and Federal Rule  of Evidence 702.

The Rule 26(b) Relevance Standard

With respect to the relevance standard under Rule 26, plaintiffs maintain that there are no objective criteria to establish that defendant’s predictive coding technology will reliably “capture a sufficient number of relevant documents from the total universe of documents in existence.” Unless the technology’s “search methodologies” are “carefully crafted and tested for quality assurance,” there is risk that the defined protocol could “exclude a large number of responsive email” from the defendant’s production. This, plaintiffs assert, is not acceptable in an employment discrimination matter where liberal discovery is typically the order of the day.

Reliability under Rule 702

The plaintiffs also contend that the court abdicated its gatekeeper role under Rule 702 and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals by not soliciting expert testimony to assess the reliability of the defendant’s predictive coding technology. Such testimony is particularly necessary in this instance, plaintiffs argue, where the technology at issue is new and untested by the judiciary. To support their position, the plaintiffs filed a declaration from their expert witness that challenges its reliability. Relying on that declaration, the plaintiffs complain that the process lacks “explicit and defined standards.” According to the plaintiffs, such standards would typically include “calculations . . . to determine whether the system is accurate in identifying responsive documents.” They would also include “the standard of acceptance that they are trying to achieve,” i.e., whether the defendant’s “method actually works.”  Plaintiffs conclude that without such “quality assurance measurements in place to determine whether the methodology is reliable,” the current predictive coding process is “fundamentally flawed” and should be rejected.

Wait and See

Now that the plaintiffs have filed their objections, the eDiscovery world must now wait and see what will happen next. The defendant will certainly respond in kind, vigorously defending the ordered process with declarations from its own experts. Whether the plaintiffs or the defendant will carry the day depends on how the district court views these issues, particularly the issue of transparency. Simply put, the question is whether the process at issue is sufficiently transparent to satisfy Rule 26 and Rule 702? That is the proverbial $64,000 question as we wait and see how this issue plays out in the courts over the coming weeks and months.

Litigation attorneys were abuzz last week when a few breaking news stories erroneously reported that The Honorable Andrew J. Peck, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York, ordered the parties in a gender discrimination case to use predictive coding technology during discovery.  Despite early reports, the parties in the case (Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Group, et. al.) actually agreed to use predictive coding technology during discovery – apparently of their own accord.  The case is still significant because predictive coding technology in eDiscovery is relatively new to the legal field, and many have been reluctant to embrace a new technological approach to document review due to, among other things, a lack of judicial guidance.

Unfortunately, despite this atmosphere of cooperation, the discussion stalled when the parties realized they were miles apart in terms of defining a mutually agreeable predictive coding protocol.  A February status conference transcript reveals significant confusion and complexity related to issues such as random sampling, quality control testing, and the overall process integrity.  In response, Judge Peck ordered the parties to submit a Joint Protocol for eDiscovery to address eDiscovery generally and the use of predictive coding technology specifically.

The parties submitted their proposed protocol on February 22, 2012 and Judge Peck quickly reduced that submission to a stipulation and order.  The stipulation and order certainly provides more clarity and insight into the process than the status conference transcript.  However, reading the stipulation and order leaves little doubt that the devil is in the details – and there are a lot of details.  Equally clear is the fact that the parties are still in disagreement and the plaintiffs do not support the “joint” protocol laid out in the stipulation and order.  Plaintiffs actually go so far as to incorporate a paragraph into the stipulation and order stating that they “object to this ESI Protocol in its entirety” and they “reserve the right to object to its use in the case.”

These problems underscore some of the points made in a Forbes article published earlier this week titled, “Federal Judges Consider Important Issues That Could Shape the Future of Predictive Coding Technology.”  The Forbes article relies in part on a recent predictive coding survey to make the point that, while predictive coding technology has tremendous potential, the solutions need to become more transparent and the workflows must be simplified before they go mainstream.

The long awaited order regarding the preservation of thousands of computer hard drives in Pippins v. KPMG was finally issued last week. In a sharply worded decision, the Pippins court overruled KPMG’s objections to the magistrate’s preservation order and denied its motion for protective order. The firm must now preserve the hard drives of certain former and departing employees unless it can reach an agreement with the plaintiffs on a methodology for sampling data from a select number of those hard drives.

Though easy to get caught up in the opinion’s rhetoric (“[i]t smacks of chutzpah (no definition required) to argue that the Magistrate failed to balance the costs and benefits of preservation . . .”), the Pippins case confirms the importance of both cooperation and proportionality in eDiscovery. With respect to cooperation, the court emphasized that parties should take reasonable positions in discovery so as to reach mutually agreeable results. The order also stressed the importance of communicating with the court to clarify discovery obligations.  In that regard, the court faulted the parties and the magistrate for not seeking the court’s clarification with respect to its prior order staying discovery. The court explained that the discovery stay – which KPMG had understood to prevent any sampling of the hard drives – could have been partially lifted to allow for sampling. And this, in turn, could have obviated the costs and delays associated with the motion practice on this matter.

Regarding proportionality, the court confirmed the importance of this doctrine in determining the scope of preservation. Indeed, the court declared that proportionality is typically “determinative” of a motion for protective order. Nevertheless, the court could not engage in a proportionality analysis – weighing the benefits of preserving the hard drives against its burdens – as the defendant had not yet produced any evidence from the hard drives to evaluate the nature of the evidence. Only after the evidence from a sampling of hard drives had been produced and evaluated could such a determination be made.

The Pippins case demonstrates that courts have raised their expectations for how litigants will engage in eDiscovery. Staking out unreasonable positions in the name of zealous advocacy stands in stark contrast to the clear trend that discovery should comply with the cost cutting mandate of Federal Rule 1. Cooperation and proportionality are two of the principal touchstones for effectuating that mandate.

On November 28, 2011, The White House issued a Presidential Memorandum that outlines what is expected of the 480 federal agencies of the government’s three branches in the next 240 days.  Up until now, Washington, D.C. has been the Wild West with regard to information governance as each agency has often unilaterally adopted its own arbitrary policies and systems.  Moreover, some agencies have recently purchased differing technologies.  Unfortunately,  with the President’s ultimate goal of uniformity, this centralization will be difficult to accomplish with a range of disparate technological approaches.

Particular pain points for the government traditionally include retention, search, collection, review and production of vast amounts of data and records.  Specifically, these pain points include examples of: FOIA requests gone awry, the issuance of legal holds across different agencies leading to spoliation, and the ever present problem of decentralization.

Why is the government different?

Old Practices. First, in some instances the government is technologically behind (its corporate counterparts) and is failing to meet the judiciary’s expectation that organizations effectively store, manage and discover their information.  This failing is self-evident via  the directive coming from the President mandating that these agencies start to get a plan to attack this problem.  Though different than other corporate entities, the government is nevertheless held to the same standards of eDiscovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).  In practice, the government has been given more leniency until recently, and while equal expectations have not always been the case, the gap between the private and public sectors in no longer possible to ignore.

FOIA.  The government’s arduous obligation to produce information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has no corresponding analog for private organizations, who are responding to more traditional civil discovery requests.  Because the government is so large with many disparate IT systems, it is cumbersome to work efficiently through the information governance process across agencies and many times still difficult inside one individual agency with multiple divisions.  Executing this production process is even more difficult if not impossible to do manually without properly deployed technology.  Additionally, many of the investigatory agencies that issue requests to the private sector need more efficient ways to manage and review data they are requesting.  To compound problems, within the US government there are two opposing interests are at play; both screaming for a resolution, and that solution needs to be centralized.  On the one hand, the government needs to retain more than a corporation may need to in order to satisfy a FOIA request.

Titan Pulled at Both Ends. On the other hand, without classification of the records that are to be kept, technology to organize this vast amount of data and some amount of expiry, every agency will essentially become their own massive repository.  The “retain everything mentality” coupled with the inefficient search and retrieval of data and records is where they stand today.  Corporations are experiencing this on a smaller scale today and many are collectively further along than the government in this process, without the FOIA complications.

What are agencies doing to address these mandates?

In their plans, agencies must describe how they will improve or maintain their records management programs, particularly with regard to email, social media and other electronic communications.  They must also move away from such a paper-centric existence.  eDiscovery consultants and software companies are helping agencies through this process, essentially writing their plans to match the President’s directive.  The cloud conversation has been revisited, and agencies also have to explain how they will use cloud-based services and storage solutions, as well as identify gaps in existing laws or regulations that presently prevent improved management.  Small innovations are taking place.  In fact, just recently the DOJ added a new search feature on their website to make it easier for the public to find documents that have been posted by agencies on their websites.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and Justice Department will use those reports to come up with a government-wide records management framework that is more efficient, maintains accountability by documenting agency actions and promotes “appropriate” public access to records.  Hopefully, the framework they come up with will be centralized and workable on a realistic timeframe with resources sufficiently allocated to the initiative.

How much will this cost?

The President’s mandate is a great initiative and very necessary, but one cannot help but think about the costs in terms of money, time and resources when considering these crucial changes.  The most recent version of a financial services and general government appropriations bill in the Senate extends $378.8 million to NARA for this initiative.  President Obama appointed Steven VanRoekel as the United States CIO in August 2011 to succeed Vivek Kundra.  After VanRoekel’s speech at the Churchill Club in October of 2011, an audience member asked him what the most surprising aspect of his new job was.  VanRoekel said that it was managing the huge and sometimes unwieldy resources of his $80 billion budget.  It is going to take even more than this to do the job right, however.

Using conservative estimates, assume for an agency to implement archiving and eDiscovery capabilities as an initial investment would be $100 million.  That approximates $480 billion for all 480 agencies.  Assume a uniform information governance platform gets adopted by all agencies at a 50% discount due to the large contracts and also factoring in smaller sums for agencies with lesser needs.  The total now comes to $240 billion.  For context, that figure is 5% of what was spent by Federal Government ($4.76 trillion) on the biggest bailout in history in 2008. That leaves a need for $160 billion more to get the job done. VanRoekel also commented at the same meeting that he wants to break down massive multi-year information technology projects into smaller, more modular projects in the hopes of saving the government from getting mired in multi-million dollar failures.   His solution to this, he says, is modular and incremental deployment.

While Rome was not built in a day, this initiative is long overdue, yet feasible, as technology exists to address these challenges rather quickly.  After these 240 days are complete and a plan is drawn the real question is, how are we going to pay now for technology the government needed yesterday?  In a perfect world, the government would select a platform for archiving and eDiscovery, break the project into incremental milestones and roll out a uniform combination of solutions that are best of breed in their expertise.

The New Year has now dawned and with it, the certainty that 2012 will bring new developments to the world of eDiscovery.  Last month, we spotlighted some eDiscovery trends for 2012 that we feel certain will occur in the near term.  To understand how these trends will play out, it is instructive to review some of the top eDiscovery cases from 2011.  These decisions provide a roadmap of best practices that the courts promulgated last year.  They also spotlight the expectations that courts will likely have for organizations in 2012 and beyond.

Issuing a Timely and Comprehensive Litigation Hold

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suspending Document Retention Policies

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

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

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

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

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

Managing the Document Collection Process

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

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

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

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

Using Proportionality to Dictate the Scope of Permissible Discovery

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

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

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

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

Leveraging eDiscovery Technologies for Search and Review

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

William Butterfield is a partner at Hausfeld LLP with over 33 years of experience as a trial attorney and a track record of success.  In addition to serving as a leader in several legal think tanks and teaching law, Mr. Butterfield’s achievements include reaching multiple settlements in the neighborhood of $100 million in complex legal matters.  Last week Mr. Butterfield had the rare opportunity to testify before Congress regarding the Costs and Burdens of eDiscovery in Washington D.C.  The following dialogue captures his experiences and observations testifying before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Matthew Nelson: What was it like testifying before Congress and why did you feel compelled to testify?

William P. Butterfield: It was my first time testifying before Congress, so I wasn’t sure what to expect.  But it was a positive experience for me, and I’m glad that I was asked to testify.  While there is an organized, and well-financed effort by some in the corporate community to make drastic revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or civil rules, there is also a large segment of the bar (including many attorneys who are thought leaders in this area) who think that the types of “cures” under consideration will do more harm than good.  I think it’s important to give voice to that view, and that is why I testified.

Nelson: What were some of the key points you and other witnesses with different viewpoints made during the hearing?

Butterfield: Rebecca Kourlis, executive director of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS), testified that the cost of litigation is in part responsible for fewer trials.  She said that IAALS supports a three-pronged approach to address the problem:  1) More effective judicial case management, 2) Increased cooperation and 3) Rules revisions.  Importantly, Justice Kourlis said that we should defer to the Standing Committee and the Civil Rules Advisory Committee of the Judicial Conference, which is addressing the issues.

William Hubbard, assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago, testified about the costs of preservation and eDiscovery, noting that the costs are relatively modest in most cases.  He testified that most of the high discovery costs are occurring in a very few (5%) cases.

Thomas Hill, associate general counsel at General Electric, testified that the current Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) result in American companies waste billions of dollars on unnecessary document preservation and production.  He indicated that part of the problem is that companies must preserve documents before a lawsuit is filed, and often they preserve where no lawsuit is ever filed.  He provided examples of occasions where GE spent more in preservation than the money at stake in the litigation.

My testimony focused on three things:  1) Our legal system depends on discovery and some of the proposals from those seeking drastic rules changes would undermine our goal of searching for the truth in litigation and resolving disputes on the merits; 2) The fear of sanctions that some companies claim are causing them to over-preserve is overblown, given that sanctions are sought in just 1/15th of 1% of federal court cases, and are granted in only about half of those cases; 3) A review of sanctions decisions demonstrates that parties are not getting sanctioned where they acted in good faith.  Rather, they are being sanctioned for egregious conduct.

Nelson: Did you sense a split among party lines or among certain members of Congress or some kind of overwhelming consensus on any issues?

Butterfield: Predictably, there appeared to be some differences between parties, although it is hard to say what reflects the views of Republicans on the committee, because only one of their members participated.  The Democrats expressed two general views:  1) Although eDiscovery presents challenges to litigants, it has been valuable in uncovering critical evidence and is very beneficial to the goals of discovery in general, 2) Congress should not interfere with the Rules Committee, which is carefully studying these issues.  The Republicans, represented by the Subcommittee Chair, Trent Franks, took the position that the current discovery rules do not promote the objectives of Rule 1, which provides that litigation should be just, speedy and inexpensive.  Franks said that the civil rules regarding preservation and spoliation sanctions are too vague, and parties are therefore required to preserve excessive amounts of information.  But despite those differences, I didn’t observe any member calling for congressional intervention at this time.

Nelson: What struck you as interesting or important and what do you expect will be the outcome or next steps for Congress?

Butterfield: What struck me as interesting (and surprising) was that only one member from the majority participated in the hearing.  Nothing during the hearing led me to believe that Congress would interfere with the Rules Committee’s work and process.

For those interested in hearing more, visit the United States Courts website to listen to a full recording of the hearing. To learn more about FRCP developments follow Matt Nelson on Twitter at @InfoGovlawer

The eDiscovery frenzy that has gripped the American legal system over the past decade has become increasingly expensive.  Particularly costly to both clients and courts is the process of preserving, collecting and producing documents.  This was supposed to change after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) were amended in 2006.  After all, weren’t the amended rules designed to streamline discovery, allowing parties to focus on the merits while making discovery costs more reasonable?  Instead, it seems the rules have spawned more collateral discovery disputes than ever before about preservation, collection and production issues.

As a solution to these costs, the eDiscovery cognoscenti are emphasizing the concept of “proportionality.”  Proportionality typically requires that the benefits of discovery be commensurate with its corresponding burdens.  Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the directive that discovery be proportional is found in Rules 26(c), 26(b)(2)(C) and Rule 26(b)(2)(B).  Under Rule 26(c), courts may generally issue protective orders that limit or even proscribe discovery that causes “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”  More specifics are set forth in Rule 26(b)(2)(C), which enables courts to restrict discovery if the requests are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, the discovery can be obtained from an alternative source that is less expensive or burdensome, or the burden or expense of the discovery outweighs its benefit.  In the specific context of electronic discovery, Rule 26(b)(2)(B) restricts the discovery of backup tapes and other electronically stored information that are “not reasonably accessible” due to “undue burden or cost.”

Despite the existence of these provisions, they are often bypassed.  The most recent and notable example of this trend is found in Pippins v. KPMG (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2011).  In Pippins, the court ordered the defendant accounting firm to continue preserving thousands of employee hard drives.  In so doing, the court sidestepped the firm’s proportionality argument, citing Orbit One v. Numerex (S.D.N.Y. 2010) for the premise that such a standard is “too amorphous” and therefore unworkable.  Regardless of cost or burden, the court reasoned that “prudence” required preservation of all relevant materials “until a more precise definition [of proportionality] is created by rule.”

The Pippins order and its associated costs for the firm – potentially into the millions of dollars – has given new fuel to the argument that an amended federal rule should be implemented to include a more express mandate regarding proportionality.  Surprisingly enough, a blueprint for such an amended rule is already in place in the State of Utah.  Effective November 1, 2011, Utah implemented sweeping changes to civil discovery practice through amended Civil Procedure Rule 26.  The new rule makes proportionality the standard now governing eDiscovery in Utah.

Proportionality Dictates the Scope of Permissible Discovery

Utah Rule 26 has changed the permissible scope of discovery to expressly condition that all discovery meet the standards of proportionality.  That means parties may seek discovery of relevant, non-privileged materials “if the discovery satisfies the standards of proportionality.”  This effectively shifts the burden of proof on proportionality from the responding party to the requesting party.  Indeed, Utah Rule 26(b)(3) specifically codifies this stunning change:  “The party seeking discovery always has the burden of showing proportionality and relevance.”  This stands in sharp contrast to Federal Rules 26(b)(2) and 26(c), which require the responding party to show the discovery is not proportional.

The “standards of proportionality” that have been read into Utah Rule 26 incorporate those found in Federal Rule 26(b)(2)(C).  In addition, Utah Rule 26 requires that discovery be “reasonable.”  Reasonableness is to be determined on the needs of a given case such as the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the complexity and importance of the issues, and the role of the discovery in addressing such issues.  Last but not least, discovery must expressly comply with the cost cutting mandate of Rule 1 and thereby “further the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of the case.”

Proportionality Limits the Amount of Discovery

To further address the burdens and costs of disproportionate discovery, Utah Rule 26(c) limits the amount of discovery that parties may conduct as a matter of right based on the specific amounts in controversy.  For those matters involving damages of $300,000 or more, parties may propound 20 interrogatories, document requests and requests for admissions.  Total fact deposition time is restricted to a mere 30 hours.  For matters between $50,000 and $300,000, those figures are halved.  And for matters under $50,000, only five document requests and requests for admissions are allotted to the parties.  Fact depositions are curtailed to three hours total per side, while interrogatories are eliminated.

If these limits are too restrictive, parties may request “extraordinary discovery” under Rule 26(c)(6).  However, any such request must demonstrate that the sought after discovery is “necessary and proportional” under the rules.  The parties must also certify that a budget for the discovery has been “reviewed and approved.”

A Potential Model for Federal Discovery Rule Amendments

Utah Rule 26 could perhaps serve as a model for amending the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules.  Like Utah Rule 26, Federal Rule 26 could be amended to expressly condition discovery on meeting the principles of proportionality.  The Federal Rules could also be modified to ensure the propounding party always has the burden of demonstrating the fact specific good cause for its discovery.  Doing so would undoubtedly force counsel and client to be more precise with their requests and do away with the current regime of “promiscuous discovery.”  Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223 (1997) (urging courts to “aggressively” curb discovery abuses which, “like a cancerous growth, can destroy a meritorious cause or defense”).

Tiering the amounts of permitted discovery based on alleged damages could also reduce the costs of discovery.  With limited deposition time and fewer document requests, discovery of necessity would likely focus on the merits instead of eDiscovery sideshows.  Coupling this with an “extraordinary discovery” provision would enable courts to exercise greater control over the process and ensure that genuinely complex matters are litigated efficiently.

If all of this seems like a radical departure from established discovery practice, consider that the new Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases has also incorporated tiered and extraordinary discovery provisions.  See DCG Systems v. Checkpoint Technologies (N.D. Ca. Nov. 2, 2011) (adopting the model order and explaining the benefits of limiting eDiscovery in patent cases).

For those who are seeking a vision of how proportionality might be incorporated into the Federal Rules, new Utah Rule 26 could be a blueprint for doing so.

Few people on the planet know more about federal rulemaking than John Rabiej, The Sedona Conference’s Director for Judicial Outreach.  John’s experience is the result of serving as the Chief of the Rules Committee Support Office for nearly two decades, where he routinely worked with federal judges, including current Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts.  A key part of supporting the rulemaking process included building consensus among many different groups and individuals who sometimes held vastly different notions of whether and how rules should be changed.

In addition to his role with The Sedona Conference, John is an accomplished author who has written extensively on rules related issues.  His publications include contributions to Moore’s Federal Practice, the Federal Lawyer, and Weinsten’s Federal Evidence.  I’m pleased to provide John’s take on the increasingly public debate about whether or not the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) should be amended.

Nelson: You are recognized as one of the leading experts on the Federal Rule making process.  How did you gain that experience and notoriety?

Rabiej: I established the rules committee office within the Administrative Office of United States Courts nearly two decades ago to provide staff support to the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and its five advisory rules committees.  In this capacity, I had the privilege and honor of working very closely with 31 federal circuit, district, and bankruptcy judges who chaired a rules committee. These chairs were personally selected by the Chief Justice and represented the very best of the federal judiciary.  I learned from each of them and put their wise counsel to good use when I, in turn, provided advice to their successors.  At the same time, I worked closely with the committee reporters, who are each stellar academics with national reputations for excellence.  Over the years, I built up an institutional knowledge of rule amendments based on first-hand experiences.

I soon realized that rulemaking is a transparent, formal, quasi-legislative process, which typically requires a great deal of information gathering, consultation with interested groups, and consensus building.  I played a unique role because I coordinated the rules work among the rules committees, other Judicial Conference committees, members of the Judicial Conference, Supreme Court staff, Congressional members and staff, Executive Branch officials, major bar organizations, academics, and interest groups.  Because the federal rules have the force of law, buy-in from all these various major actors was a critical component of success.  And many of my responsibilities were to ensure that the rules committees were advised of the concerns and different points of view of these various individuals and entities.

Nelson: Are there any interesting stories or life lessons you can share about working with any of the committee chairs and members?

Rabiej: Without exception, every rules committee chair in my experience has not only been exceptionally bright and intelligent, but also considerate and kind on a personal human level. They each displayed the highest level of judicial temperament.  A good example is Chief Justice (then Judge) John Roberts’ patience in handling a particularly difficult public hearing.  Several years ago, an elderly lawyer requested to testify on a proposed amendment to the Appellate Rules.  I was unable to persuade the lawyer to withdraw the request, even though his request was the only one.  Judge Roberts generously agreed to preside over the hearing by himself on the committee’s behalf.  Witnesses testifying at rules hearings typically are given 10 minutes to make their presentations.  With only Judge Roberts, a stenographer, and me in the hearing room, the lawyer made a 30-minute rambling presentation, which solely addressed a local incident allegedly involving criminal misconduct.  It had absolutely nothing to do with the procedural appellate rule proposal under consideration.  Judge Roberts never interrupted the lawyer.  He patiently listened, genuinely was interested in the lawyer’s story, and responded with courtesy to all the lawyer’s questions.  At the end, the lawyer was satisfied that he had his day in “court” and walked away content.  This is only one of many examples of my experiences with rules committee judges acting in the finest traditions of the federal judiciary.

Nelson: Who is lobbying for changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) and why?

Rabiej: Most rule amendment proposals are not controversial and are supported by general consensus.  But a few have been especially contentious.  Though rules are designed to apply to all parties in a neutral fashion, they can and do affect parties differently.  When large amounts of money hang in the balance, parties and their representatives go to great pains to make sure that the rules committees take into consideration their concerns and points of view. The current debate on preservation and sanctions issues is the most recent example.  The rules committees welcome such attention and close scrutiny because it leads to better and more informed rulemaking and greater buy-in from the affected parties and interest groups.

A loose coalition of officers from large corporations, corporate counsel, lawyers from large law firms, and interest groups, including Lawyers for Civil Justice, representing corporate and business clientele, is forming to advocate bold changes to the scope of discovery, which would narrow a party’s preservation obligations and limit a party’s vulnerability to spoliation sanctions.  They argue that the cost of preservation is skyrocketing and that the vast bulk of information preserved is unnecessary and has little to do with the merits of a case. They contend that all too often they are compelled by law to preserve voluminous information even though a law suit will never be filed. Opposing them is a similarly loose coalition of plaintiffs’ lawyers, law firms, and interest groups, including the Association for American Justice, representing interests of plaintiff lawyers, who defend the rules’ status quo, contending that little, if any, change is necessary and that any narrowing of the preservation obligation or discovery scope would deny the rights of their clients.  They contend that corporations are obligated under many different sources of law and regulations to preserve records irrespective of litigation demands.  They also contend that any change to the rules would unnecessarily increase the risk of destruction of evidence that is critical to the merits of the case.

Nelson: Are there viable alternatives to changing the Rules?

Rabiej: Lawyers in many cases do not raise any preservation or spoliation sanction issues with the court.  It is unclear to me whether such inaction in an individual case is a consequence of the lawyers’ ignorance of potential eDiscovery issues or of the lawyers’ cooperation in addressing eDiscovery issues before they become problems, which The Sedona Conference® strongly advocates.  (See The Sedona Conference® Cooperation Proclamation).  In wrestling with preservation and spoliation sanction issues, the rules committees recognize that rules rarely provide the entire answer and, in fact, rules typically have only a very limited effect.  Instead, judicial education, training of the bar, and changes in litigation culture offer more promising and permanent solutions.   The rules committees are actively exploring each of these avenues with outside groups, including the Federal Judicial Center and The Sedona Conference® among others, to promote such solutions.

Though the Judicial Conference of the United States strongly opposes direct amendment of the rules by legislation, it recognizes the Congressional prerogative to do so.  Congress has rarely exercised its prerogative, however, giving due deference to the rulemaking process and recognizing that the rules produced under the process are the best.  At the same time, rules committees understand that the Rules Enabling Act limits their authority to promulgating only procedural rules, which do “not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right.”  Rules committees are very circumspect about their rulemaking authority.  They are justifiably reluctant to pursue rules proposals that might be viewed by some to exceed their authority and encroach on Congress’s domain.  This “Rules Enabling Act” issue has been raised regarding some aspects of the preservation proposals under consideration. So the rules committees are confronted with issues that raise several exquisitely delicate questions of policy and comity.

Nelson: You’ve been involved in a lot of discussions regarding Rule amendments throughout your career.  How does the current discussion rate in terms of importance?

Rabiej: The current debate on preservation and spoliation sanctions raises issues about the scope of discovery, a major litigation cost.  Because the preservation costs incurred in some cases can be extremely large, the extent of spoliation sanctions for failing to preserve relevant information can be damaging, and the destruction of potentially critical evidence devastating.  It is not surprising that representatives of both plaintiffs and defendants are so passionately pressing their positions before the rule committees.  In my experience, the level of interest in these issues equals the interest shown in only a very few past controversial amendments, including proposals affecting class actions, Daubert evidentiary procedures, and the earlier discovery scope amendments in 2000.   The keen degree of interest in the issues under consideration is reflected by the extent of Congressional participation.  Five House Judiciary Committee members of the minority and majority staffs attended the recent Civil Rules Committee meeting on preservation-related amendments in Washington DC in November.  A hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution on preservation costs was recently scheduled, but later postponed until December 13, 2012.  It is clear to me that Congress will take a hard look at preservation costs and burdens.  The rules committees are not blind to Congressional interest.  The rulemaking process is a responsibility shared with Congress and the Executive Branch, and the rules committees give the views of the other two Branches due respect in their deliberations.

John Rabiej is an attorney, The Sedona Conference’s Director for Judicial Outreach, and former Chief of the Rules Committee Support Office.  To learn more about FRCP developments email Matt Nelson at Matt_Nelson@Symantec.com or follow Matt on Twitter at @InfoGovlawer.

As 2011 comes quickly to a close we’ve attempted, as in years past, to do our best Carnac impersonation and divine the future of eDiscovery.  Some of these predictions may happen more quickly than others, but it’s our sense that all will come to pass in the near future – it’s just a matter of timing.

1. Technology Assisted Review (TAR) Gains Speed.  The area of Technology Assisted Review is very exciting since there are a host of emerging technologies that can help make the review process more efficient, ranging from email threading, concept search, clustering, predictive coding and the like.  There are two fundamental challenges however.  First, the technology doesn’t work in a vacuum, meaning that the workflows need to be properly designed and the users need to make accurate decisions because those judgment calls often are then magnified by the application.  Next, the defensibility of the given approach needs to be well vetted.  While it’s likely not necessary (or practical) to expect a judge to mandate the use of a specific technological approach, it is important for the applied technologies to be reasonable, transparent and auditable since the worst possible outcome would be to have a technology challenged and then find the producing party unable to adequately explain their methodology.
2. The Custodian-Based Collection Model Comes Under Stress. Ever since the days of Zubulake, litigants have focused on “key players” as a proxy for finding relevant information during the eDiscovery process.  Early on, this model worked particularly well in an email-centric environment.  But, as discovery from cloud sources, collaborative worksites (like SharePoint) and other unstructured data repositories continues to become increasingly mainstream, the custodian-oriented collection model will become rapidly outmoded because it will fail to take into account topically-oriented searches.  This trend will be further amplified by the bench’s increasing distrust of manual, custodian-based data collection practices and the presence of better automated search methods, which are particularly valuable for certain types of litigation (e.g., patent disputes, product liability cases).
3. The FRCP Amendment Debate Will Rage On – Unfortunately Without Much Near Term Progress. While it is clear that the eDiscovery preservation duty has become a more complex and risk laden process, it’s not clear that this “pain” is causally related to the FRCP.  In the notes from the Dallas mini-conference, a pending Sedona survey was quoted referencing the fact that preservation challenges were increasing dramatically.  Yet, there isn’t a consensus viewpoint regarding which changes, if any, would help improve the murky problem.  In the near term this means that organizations with significant preservation pains will need to better utilize the rules that are on the books and deploy enabling technologies where possible.
4. Data Hoarding Increasingly Goes Out of Fashion. The war cry of many IT professionals that “storage is cheap” is starting to fall on deaf ears.  Organizations are realizing that the cost of storing information is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the litigation risk of having terabytes (and conceivably petabytes) of unstructured, uncategorized and unmanaged electronically stored information (ESI).  This tsunami of information will increasingly become an information liability for organizations that have never deleted a byte of information.  In 2012, more corporations will see the need to clean out their digital houses and will realize that such cleansing (where permitted) is a best practice moving forward.  This applies with equal force to the US government, which has recently mandated such an effort at President Obama’s behest.
5. Information Governance Becomes a Viable Reality.  For several years there’s been an effort to combine the reactive (far right) side of the EDRM with the logically connected proactive (far left) side of the EDRM.  But now, a number of surveys have linked good information governance hygiene with better response times to eDiscovery requests and governmental inquires, as well as a corresponding lower chance of being sanctioned and the ability to turn over less responsive information.  In 2012, enterprises will realize that the litigation use case is just one way to leverage archival and eDiscovery tools, further accelerating adoption.
6. Backup Tapes Will Be Increasingly Seen as a Liability.  Using backup tapes for disaster recovery/business continuity purposes remains a viable business strategy, although backing up to tape will become less prevalent as cloud backup increases.  However, if tapes are kept around longer than necessary (days versus months) then they become a ticking time bomb when a litigation or inquiry event crops up.
7. International eDiscovery/eDisclosure Processes Will Continue to Mature. It’s easy to think of the US as dominating the eDiscovery landscape. While this is gospel for us here in the States, international markets are developing quickly and in many ways are ahead of the US, particularly with regulatory compliance-driven use cases, like the UK Bribery Act 2010.  This fact, coupled with the menagerie of international privacy laws, means we’ll be less Balkanized in our eDiscovery efforts moving forward since we do really need to be thinking and practicing globally.
8. Email Becomes “So 2009” As Social Media Gains Traction. While email has been the eDiscovery darling for the past decade, it’s getting a little long in the tooth.  In the next year, new types of ESI (social media, structured data, loose files, cloud context, mobile device messages, etc.) will cause headaches for a number of enterprises that have been overly email-centric.  Already in 2011, organizations are finding that other sources of ESI like documents/files and structured data are rivaling email in importance for eDiscovery requests, and this trend shows no signs of abating, particularly for regulated industries. This heterogeneous mix of ESI will certainly result in challenges for many companies, with some unlucky ones getting sanctioned because they ignored these emerging data types.
9. Cost Shifting Will Become More Prevalent – Impacting the “American Rule.” For ages, the American Rule held that producing parties had to pay for their production costs, with a few narrow exceptions.  Next year we’ll see even more courts award winning parties their eDiscovery costs under 28 U.S.C. §1920(4) and Rule 54(d)(1) FRCP. Courts are now beginning to consider the services of an eDiscovery vendor as “the 21st Century equivalent of making copies.”
10. Risk Assessment Becomes a Critical Component of eDiscovery. Managing risk is a foundational underpinning for litigators generally, but its role in eDiscovery has been a bit obscure.  Now, with the tremendous statistical insights that are made possible by enabling software technologies, it will become increasingly important for counsel to manage risk by deciding what types of error/precision rates are possible.  This risk analysis is particularly critical for conducting any variety of technology assisted review process since precision, recall and f-measure statistics all require a delicate balance of risk and reward.