e-discovery 2.0

Every car dealer knows he should focus customers on the monthly payment, not the total cost of the car. Every credit card solicitation (or sub-prime mortgage, for that matter) starts with the offer of 0% interest, not the actual interest rate or fees the customer will pay after the first 6 months. The reason is simple: once you lease the car or put a balance on the credit card, it’s very hard to switch away when – as often happens – you find yourself paying much more than you should later on.

I was reminded of these examples when reading about Kroll Ontrack’s offer of “free ECA” and Stratify’s recent press release announcing “free early stage filtering” for electronic discovery. Taking each in turn:

Kroll Ontrack Advanceview

Based on feedback from several customers in Washington DC, New York, and the Mid-West, Kroll Ontrack often provides Advanceview at no charge. That means customers can get “custodian de-duplication” and “1 keyword and date filter pass” for free, although Kroll still charges $200-250/hour for doing the work. The resulting data set is then processed and loaded into its review platform for $1,500-$1,800 per gigabyte.

Is this a good deal? For the vast majority of customers, the answer is “no” for three reasons.

First, customers typically end up paying more than they would using alternative products. For example, in the chart below, we compare the cost of using Kroll Ontrack to that of Clearwell for a 100 gigabyte project. In both cases, we assume customers are doing de-duplication, filtering, keyword searching, first pass review, and load file creation. As with any comparison of this sort, you have to make some simplifying assumptions. For example, we excluded data hosting fees and professional services fees from the analysis.

Whether customers are better off with Kroll depends entirely on how much data is culled out for free before customers incur the high, back-end charges. Given that all Kroll is doing for free is custodian de-duplication and running one set of keywords and date filters, the typical cull rate is likely be anywhere from 20% to 50% — nowhere near the 80% cull rate required for Kroll to be more cost effective than Clearwell.

The second reason why this is not a good deal is that it gives customers no certainty about costs. Culling rates from de-duplication and blind keyword searches are unpredictable and vary widely, meaning that some projects will cost more than expected while others will cost less. But every project has budget that’s determined up front and, as any litigation support manager will tell you, you get much less credit for being under budget than you get pain for going over budget. That’s why cost certainty is one of the leading requests from anyone involved in electronic discovery.

Finally, excluding data based on a single round of keyword searches and date filters is not in line with The Sedona Conference best practices. Rather, Sedona recommends that customers iterate their keywords and culling strategies to hone them appropriately.

Iron Mountain Stratify OnPoint

It is not yet possible to do the same detailed analysis on Stratify’s OnPoint which offers “free early stage filtering”, because it’s impossible to tell exactly what that means. In its artfully-worded press release and data sheet, Stratify promises to provide “free processing and loading of unlimited data for early stage filtering”. Does that include de-duplication? Does that include any keyword searching? My guess is “no”, in which case all they are really doing for free is offering to load data into their review platform so that they can then charge you – not a very compelling offer. But if anyone does know the answer to these questions, or if Stratify would like to clarify exactly what’s being offered for free, then please let me know and I’ll post an update.

Once data is in Stratify’s system, it charges a “one-time fee starting at $500 per gigabyte” for “reviewable data”. But it does not say if that’s the only fee. What about monthly hosting charges? Fees for additional reviewers? Again, it’s not yet clear what the downstream cost of review really is using Stratify, so it’s impossible to know whether this is a good deal.

If there’s one lesson from all of this, it’s “buyer beware”. Just as when you buy a car, sign up for a credit card, or click on that offer to get more corn on Farmville, you need to look beyond the “free offer” and understand what it’s really going to cost you.

Jason R. Baron was a keynote speaker at a recent electronic discovery summit and he mentioned an electronic data discovery topic that “ought to be blogged about.”  So, with that kind of softball I had to take a swing, particularly because it’s been a topic we (at e-discovery 2.0) have been discussing lately.

The genesis of this blog (per Jason) is the recent “skepticism” evidenced by the bench regarding the defensibility of custodian based collections.  ARMA has a good piece on this very topic, entitled “Is ‘Manual’ Collection of ESI Defensible?”  The core notion is that the tried and true practice of custodian based ESI collection is now under fire by courts, which appear to be looking at this practice with an increasing level of distrust.

“While it is common for companies to use automated data-collection software and hardware, some corporate litigants opt for more informal, “manual” collection methods (i.e., searches performed by individual records custodians) when responding to ESI requests. Companies may choose the manual collection of ESI to reduce costs, particularly if they have limited levels of litigation or lower risk levels posed by the litigation itself.”

While there’s no dispute that the “automated” collection methods available in litigation software referenced above have a number of features that make this approach more efficient, the question is whether a “manual” (i.e., custodian based) collection process is somehow less defensible.  If this is truly the case, then many midsized companies without the budget to purchase such e-discovery applications will inherently be found deficient – which is a daunting notion.

Take the recent case of Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Properties Inc., 257 F.R.D. 418 (D.N.J. 2009) where the dispute arose out of the demolition of a Ford assembly plant in New Jersey.  Ford and Edgewood entered into a contract whereby Ford agreed to provide 50,000 cubic yards of concrete to Edgewood in exchange for Edgewood removing it from the site.  When the concrete turned out to be contaminated, the dispute started in earnest.

The crux of Edgewood’s complaint was that it was unhappy with Ford’s production and somehow suspected that the dearth of documents was due to the electronic data collection process.  Edgewood sought to “’confirm the adequacy of Ford’s manual document collection process’ by using a third-party vendor to perform keyword searches on documents not in the existing repository of ESI, but instead, documents within the possession of certain Ford custodians.”

To reconcile the dispute the court looked to the Sedona Conference’s work in the area:

“In The Sedona Conference Best Practices Commentary on the Use of Search and Information Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery, Practice Point 1 states that “[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.”(emphasis added). Once again, the Court confronts this peculiar situation insofar as Edgewood has a point that the document collection method used by Ford is not necessarily contemplated under the Sedona Principles, but that agreement by the parties at the outset as to the mode of collection would have been the proper and efficacious course of action.  However, “[a]bsen[t] agreement, a [responding] party has the presumption, under Sedona Principle 6, that it is in the best position to choose an appropriate method of searching and culling data.”

Accordingly, the court found that the lack of agreement coupled with Ford being in the best position to make a call about the methodology, was a deciding factor in generally upholding Ford’s manual collection process.

“It would be improvident at this juncture to grant Edgewood the relief it seeks when it has not shown any indicia of bad faith on the part of Ford. To countenance such a holding would unreasonably put the shoe on the other foot and require a producing party to go to herculean and costly lengths (especially in a document-heavy case such as this) in the face of mere accusation to rebut a claim of withholding. This scenario is not contemplated by the Federal Rules.”

While Ford wasn’t penalized for its manual collection, this practice has come under fire in several other opinions.  In the highly controversial case of Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 621 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Utah 2009) custodian based collection/preservation policies were similarly under fire.

“ASUS’ practices invite the abuse of rights of others, because the practices tend toward loss of data. The practices place operations-level employees in the position of deciding what information is relevant to the enterprise and its data retention needs. ASUS alone bears responsibility for the absence of evidence it would be expected to possess. While Adams has not shown ASUS mounted a destructive effort aimed at evidence affecting Adams or at evidence of ASUS’ wrongful use of intellectual property, it is clear that ASUS’ lack of a retention policy and irresponsible data retention practices are responsible for the loss of significant data.”

Adams was in fact cited by Judge Scheindlin in her latest opus – Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Sec. LLC, No. 05 Civ. 9016, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4546, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010), where she found fault with the Plaintiff’s reliance on manual collections:

“This instruction does not meet the standard for a litigation hold. It does not direct employees to preserve all relevant records–both paper and electronic-nor does it create a mechanism for collecting the preserved records so that they can be searched by someone other than the employee.  Rather, the directive places total reliance on the employee to search and select what that employee believed to be responsive records without any supervision from Counsel.

From the foregoing, it’s probably too early to call the skepticism over manual collection a trend per se.  Certainly, lobbing a preservation notice over the proverbial wall to custodians without the requisite level of supervision is a recipe for disaster.  Education (about the matter and the required tasks), compliance (with the preservation instructions) and ongoing monitoring (to ensure that compliance continues over time) are all critical responsibilities that must be thoughtfully undertaken by counsel for a defensible ediscovery process.

The question then becomes, is the problem here really about the “manual” collection efforts by the custodians or more simply the fact that they aren’t supervised with the requisite degree of care?  If this is the case, which I’d opine that it is, then “properly executed” manual collections should be fine (i.e., defensible).

But, as Ford indicates, if your company is going to rely upon a manual collection modus operandi, then it may be advisable to let the opposition in on the use of this tactic.  This approach may be mandated by local rule or it may just be the type of transparent cooperation that’s all the rage these days.

As a long-time reader of The Economist, I was excited to find that this week’s edition writes at length about the exponential growth in electronically stored information (ESI), and how people are using technology to manage it.  I believe this is one of the most significant “mega-trends” impacting our economy, and I was thrilled to see it recognized by a mainstream publication. But when I read the 14-page special report, I was disappointed to find that its analysis of the legal and regulatory implications of “the data deluge” is really weak.

The survey does a good job of teeing up the issue:

The world contains an unimaginably vast amount of digital information which is getting ever vaster ever more rapidly. This makes it possible to do many things that previously could not be done: spot business trends, prevent diseases, combat crime and so on. Managed well, the data can be used to unlock new sources of economic value, provide fresh insights into science and hold governments to account.

It goes on to talk about how companies like Walmart, which has 2.5 petabytes of point-of-sale transaction data, is using business intelligence software to analyze the 1 million transactions it does every hour. By doing so, Walmart is able to improve the efficiency of its supply chain and the effectiveness of its marketing. The article also describes how companies like Amazon and Google use web analytics software on click stream data to improve their services.

What’s missing is an equally intelligent analysis of the legal and regulatory implications of all this data. The move from paper to ESI (email and files) has created a user-generated, written record of everything that happens in a company. That’s incredibly helpful when, after the fact, questions or disputes arise. Rather than relying on incomplete recollections, courts and regulators can now consult a written record – one where every document is time-stamped and very often attached to a person’s name via email. That enables judges and regulators to get better information which, in turn, leads to better decisions. It’s hard to quantify the value of that, but there’s no doubt it’s substantial.

There is, however, a catch. Because the volume of ESI is so great, it’s really expensive to gather, sift through, and then produce information. Add the requirement that the process needs to be defensible (i.e., easily explained in court), and the whole thing gets really expensive really fast. Hence the need for electronic discovery software: it’s the only cost-effective way for companies to manage their ESI from a legal and regulatory perspective.

That’s why I believe e-discovery software will be as big a category as web analytics software or business intelligence software – it’s a different side to the same coin. Or, more specifically, a different dimension to managing digital information stores which, as The Economist points out, are growing tenfold every five years.

Update: Nick Patience at The 451 Group has also posted on this topic, at almost exactly the same time as me.

If you have been to LegalTech before, you know that – by the end of the day – you could use a nice stiff drink to recover. So why not do it with some company? We (Aaref, Dean, Kurt, and Will) will be at the Bridges Bar at the Hilton at 7pm, and we are happy to buy drinks for the first 50 E-Discovery 2.0 readers who join us (we will have a big E-Discovery 2.0 sign on our table, so feel free to just stop by and introduce yourself). It’s a great way to meet us, suggest ideas for what we should cover on the blog, and get warmed up before going to the B-Discovery event later that evening.

Come early though. We mentioned the idea to Brandon, who runs the E-Discovery 2.0 group on LinkedIn, and he invited his group to arrive shortly after, so the seats (and the drinks!) may go fast.

It’s a new year in legal technology, and the visions of sugarplums dancing in our heads quickly give way to visions of LegalTech 2009. After all, who can help but dream about another opportunity to brave the icy streets of New York City in February? Fond memories of attempting to wolf down a stale croissant and cold cup of coffee while jostling for an uptown cab outside the New York Hilton can set even the most jaded litigation support manager’s heart aflutter.

The weather and the Manhattan traffic may remain the same, but, as we’re all painfully aware, this year’s show takes place in the context of a dramatic global recession that is having a huge impact on the legal industry’s use of technology, particularly electronic discovery. It’s in challenging times that innovation often thrives the most, so this year’s LegalTech may actually yield a surprising number of new ideas and technologies.

Innovation aside, this year’s LegalTech will likely have a bit of a different “look and feel” from last year:

Some things, of course, never change. Fortunately, the team at Incisive Media has been working overtime to put together a stellar lineup of practitioners, legal experts, and judges to provide insight into some of the key issues of legal technology. While electronic discovery is top-of-mind for many, there’s a lot of more than that on tap. Key sessions include:

• Patrick Oot, Director of Electronic Discovery and senior litigation Counsel at Verizon will lead the first-ever LegalTech Town Hall meeting, to be featured on YouTube. The Town Hall will be an interactive discussion where participants will be able to submit questions in real-time to a panel of experts for immediate feedback and insight on the topics that are of top concern.
• John W. Woods, a partner at Hunton and Williams, will deliver a keynote on “How eDiscovery is Changing the Relationship Between Law Firms and their Corporate Clients”. Clearly there’s a sea change going on here, which seems to be being accelerating by the economy, and it will be very interesting to hear what John has to say.
• Finally, LegalTech would not be complete without a contribution from a leading light of the bench. And this year, none other than United States Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola of Peskoff v. Faber and United States v. O’Keefe will be presiding. Ralph Losey said he’s “just about my favorite judge of all time” and it’s sure to be a fantastic session to get up to speed on the cutting edge of electronic discovery law.

The fantastic speaker lineup, of course, just scratches the surface. LegalTech is also an incredible networking opportunity to meet with fellow practitioners and vendors. However, it can be a little overwhelming, particularly to first-time attendees. So, we thought we’d close with a video that Monica Bay put together last year that provides a quick “how-to” guide for making the most of your time at LegalTech.

As a final note, I’ll be attending the E-Discovery 2.0 LinkedIn Happy Hour before B-Discovery’s LegalTech event.  It’s at the Hilton’s Bridges Bar from 8:00 – 9:00pm on Monday February 2^nd.  Come by and say hello.  If you are not a member of the E-Discovery 2.0 LinkedIn group, sign up here.  See you at the show!

I have written before about the irony of technology companies failing to use technology to improve their own businesses. As with any rule, there is an exception – and in e-discovery, that exception is Cisco.

This will not be a surprise to anyone familiar with Cisco, since the company has a reputation for innovation that extends well beyond networking. In the 1990s, it was quick to embrace the internet, becoming a poster child for how the web can help streamline a company’s operations. Its M&A group has probably done more to power M&A in the tech sector than anyone else, since it was Cisco which disproved the old adage that technology acquisitions do not work.

So it is with e-discovery in general, and E-Discovery 2.0 in particular. The team at Cisco – Neal, Pallab, Mark, Joel and others – are among the most thoughtful, sophisticated corporate legal departments that you will find. They support the large team of inside/outside counsels who represent the interests of Cisco’s global business, and they do it in a way that saves the company money. I have seen them do more with less than companies a fraction of their size. Neal has been talking about the phenomenon that is E-Discovery 2.0 long before me; in fact, he’s one of the people who have educated me on the topic.

Companies like Cisco, Charles Schwab, Qwest, and Wells Fargo, are “canaries in the coalmine”. That’s why, when one of them says something, people listen.

We love investing in technologies and business models that are able to shrink existing markets. If your company can take $5 of revenue from a competitor for every $1 you earn – let’s talk! – First Round Capital

At first glance, this statement may not make much sense, but I think it is actually quite profound. The idea becomes clearer when you think of it from the perspective of a customer. To paraphrase: if you can save a customer $5 by charging them $1, you have a great business. Yes, you will shrink the market, but you will blow your competition out of the water. Consider some examples:

• A small business hungry for leads pays about $1.40 for each call (or unqualified lead) it gets from placing an advertisement in the Yellow Pages, and it has to pay for the ad up front. Compare that to an average cost of 40c per click (or unqualified lead) on Google AdWords – and the 40c is only paid if someone clicks;
• When I took a 2 day trip to Guyana in March, it cost my wife 87c a minute to call my hotel using AT&T. Compare that to 28.6c a minute she could pay for the exact same call using Jajah;
• It must cost over $50 (I’m guessing) to place a personal ad in a newspaper. Compare that to a zero cost for the same ad on Craig’s List. And based on my experience, Craig’s List is more effective (I know someone who met their fiancée on Craig’s List, but have yet to meet anyone for whom a newspaper worked out);
• Many companies doing e-discovery gather data based on custodians, date ranges, and keywords and send it out to service providers like Applied Discovery or Kroll at $2,000 per GB – and then wait weeks for the results. Compare that to paying $200 per GB for a (E-Discovery 2.0) product that enables you to analyze the data in-house – and gives you the results in hours.

All this begs an obvious question: how can someone offer customers the same (or, in many cases, more) value at a fraction of the cost of existing players? That’s where new technology or business models come in. Google and Craig’s List do not spend money on printing and distributing huge volumes of paper; Jajah avoids connection fees and other costs by leveraging VoIP; and, E-Discovery 2.0 products leverage the latest innovations in search, open source, web and storage technologies.

It is ironic that the technology industry is so obsessed by growth, given that its greatest achievement is often shrinking a market.

The other day, I came across the fascinating statistic that over 50% of products returned every year to stores across America have absolutely nothing wrong with them. Apparently, consumers used them for an average of 20 minutes and then gave up, because they were too complicated.

At this point, most customers of traditional enterprise software could be forgiven for thinking: “I wish I could do that.” Enterprise applications are notoriously feature-laden, complicated to use, and difficult to install. They make their users feel stupid, by presenting them with complex pictures that look like amoeba or toolbars with 150 different options. Why does enterprise software seek to punish its customers in this way?

Partly, because customers ask for it. Whether they are buying a dishwasher or an accounting application, people habitually over-estimate their ability to figure out how a complicated product works and, as a result, pay more for features that they never use. Partly, it’s because enterprise software is designed by engineers who think everyone is as technically proficient as they are, and by marketing people who view every additional feature as a new selling point.

By contrast, Web 2.0 applications such as FaceBook, Flickr, StumbleUpon, or Meebo are incredibly easy use. Even an idiot who has never seen these applications before can use them without an instruction manual or a training course. You could say that’s because they are trivially simple applications. But I think it’s primarily because, if they were not so easy to use, people would simply click away and try something else – i.e., they would die.

That to me is the real lesson that Web 2.0 apps can teach enterprise software: make something that is easy to use, easy for someone to install, and easy for them to evaluate. Get people addicted to your application because it’s so good (the average FaceBook user spends 4+ hours a day on the site). No doubt, this is harder to do with enterprise applications because they are inherently more complex. But figure out a way to hide the complexity, packaging all the functionality users need into a design that’s easy to use. This is a key characteristic of e-discovery software applications; it’s the genius of salesforce.com’s CRM application and Apple’s iPod; and, it needs to be a core skill of any company creating enterprise applications today.

In a previous post, I wrote about the forces transforming e-discovery, a phenomenon that has received increasing attention from the press, most recently in this week’s Economist magazine. While everyone agrees that something big has changed, and (generally speaking) on the reasons why, people struggle to put their finger on exactly what e-discovery has become.

That’s why I think the concept of “E-Discovery 2.0” is so helpful. Analogous to Web 2.0, E-Discovery 2.0 is a set of new processes, technologies, and services that enable companies to manage huge volumes of data, lower costs, and meet tight deadlines.

New Processes

When e-discovery meant handing over a few boxes of paper, companies did not need much of a process. But in today’s world, where it involves terabytes of data, teams of reviewers, and precious little time, it is a very different story. To cope with the growing volume and complexity of e-discovery issues, companies have had no choice but to adopt new processes. These include:

• Collect and Preserve: Most companies have now established procedures so that, when the need arises, they can collect all data relevant to a case and ensure that it cannot be changed or deleted.
• Analyze Up Front: When presented with more work than can be done, a company’s only option is to work smarter, not harder. That means analyzing the collected data up front, to cull it down to only those emails and documents directly relevant to the case at hand.
• Collaborate Efficiently: E-Discovery has become a team sport. And whenever you have a team, you need a playbook, or a process, to ensure work is not repeated and that everyone is marching towards the same goal.

New Technologies

If technology created this problem, by making electronic communication so pervasive and voluminous, then it can also solve it. In recent years, several new technologies have arisen that enable companies to store and sift through their data to fulfill e-discovery obligations. The most significant of these trends include:

• From tape to disk: As the cost of disk storage has continued to decline, more and more companies are abandoning tapes and instead keeping their data online. Email archiving software optimizes for storage efficiency, allowing companies to keep hundreds of terabytes of data readily available for e-discovery.
• From search to analysis: Basic keyword search has evolved into sophisticated analysis technology that mines email meta-data for relevance, links messages together into discussion threads, and groups them by topics. These analysis applications allow users to sift through millions of messages in minutes, to rapidly identify, tag, and export relevant data.
• From closed systems to open standards: Until recently, technology providers made no effort to integrate their applications, leaving customers to fend for themselves. But that has started to change. Symantec Enterprise Vault and HP RISS now have open APIs, creating pressure on others to follow suit. George Socha’s Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM), a standards body, has received widespread support, accelerating progress towards creation of an open e-discovery platform.

To anyone working in litigation support, legal, or information security, all this is quite unremarkable. Of course they use technology to address e-discovery. Obviously, there has to be a process. From the company’s perspective, e-discovery has become no different to HR or finance – it is a core competency, part of doing business.

And that, perhaps, is the most remarkable thing about E-Discovery 2.0 – in only a few short years, it has become so widespread and deeply entrenched within the enterprise, that people barely notice it.

The other day, Michael Clark of EDDix sent me a fascinating academic paper (thanks, Michael!) about “information inflation” at its impact on the legal system. I had never really thought of it this way, but there have really only been 3 significant events in the evolution of information:

1. Writing (c. 5,000 years ago): Pre-historic man started to etch his markings on clay tablets, stone, wax, papyrus, bark, cloth, wood, paper, cave walls and anything else that came to hand.
2. Printing (c. 1450): Gutenberg’s movable type printing press enabled mass production of information, contributing to (among other things) the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution.
3. Digitization (c. late 20th Century): The personal computer, wide area networks, internet, email, have all led to a massive explosion of information in the past 50 years. As the article points out, “close to 100 billion emails are sent daily…In a small business, whereas formerly there was usually 1 four-drawer file cabinet full of paper records, now there is the equivalent of 2,000 four-drawer file cabinets full of such records, all contained in a cubic foot or so in the form of electronically stored information.”

How can the legal profession cope, given that a lawyer’s job is often to synthesize this mind-boggling amount of data? Fortunately, the authors have a solution:

“A family of computer technology employing new types of search methods and techniques beyond use of mere keywords should now be considered for use in litigation….Litigators can no longer depend on manual review alone. It is too time-consuming and expensive – with cost often exceeding the amounts in dispute.”

To illustrate its point, the paper tells the story of the White House and the problem of a billion emails. During the Clinton administration, the White House agreed to a form of electronic record keeping called ARMS (Automated Records Management System). At the end of each administration, these records are handed over to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The table below shows the number of stored emails NARA has, or expects to receive at the end of each administration.

Now assume that, like previous administrations, the Next President’s administration is subject to a lawsuit that requires e-discovery. The paper calculates:

“Without employing any automated computer process to generate potentially responsive documents, the review effort for this litigation would take 100 people, working 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, over 54 years to complete. And the cost of such a review, at an assumed billing rate of $100/hour, would be $2 billion. Even, however, if present day search methods are used to initially reduce the email universe to 1% of its size (i.e., 10 million documents out of 1 billion), the case would still cost $20 million for a first pass review conducted by 100 people over 28 weeks, without accounting for any additional privilege review.”

This is a great example of why companies and government agencies are adopting e-discovery 2.0 technologies that go far beyond keyword search. In the face of information inflation, what choice do they have?