e-discovery 2.0

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.

(Editor’s note: This special guest post was written by Chitrang Shah, Clearwell Principal Product Manager. He is an RIT alum and avid hiker who works with our engineering team and lead customers to optimize the product for large-scale review. – Kurt)

As we’ve previously shared, our product strategy throughout 2009 and 2010 was to expand the product footprint across the EDRM as customers were demanding a single, end-to-end eDiscovery product. During this period we successfully expanded from our roots in processing, search and analysis to review and production (August 2009), identification and collection (September 2010) and legal hold workflow (March 2011). Over the last several months, our focus has been to go deep in each of these modules and provide features that deliver even greater return on investment to our customers.

Today, I am excited to announce significant new features and feature enhancements to the Clearwell Review and Production Module and say a few words about what motivated us to build these features and how they enable our customers to further streamline their legal review workflow.

There are several exciting features in this release, but I would to like to highlight three in particular:

1. Ability to seamlessly import production load files

Most matters require reviewing relevant documents alongside the documents received from third parties, opposing parties, and even previous litigations. With the new load file import feature, users can now streamline the process of importing load files with three simple steps.

In Step 1, a step-by-step wizard-like interface guides users though the selection of formatting information such as field delimiters and nested value delimiters, metadata information such as bates numbers, family relationships, tags, folders and any number of custom attributes, and content information such as images, extracted text and native files. When the load file has both extracted texts and native files, the wizard gives users an option to specify which content should be used for searching.

In Step 2, the system performs a deep validation of the load file and generates a report documenting any inconsistencies such as missing bates numbers or missing values for required fields found in the load file. As a result, customers have the ability to quickly find and fix any issues with the load file before the import begins.

In Step 3, the system imports the documents and builds analytics. Once this step completes, the imported documents, including all metadata and content, are available for viewing and searching.

All the analytics capabilities customers are familiar with, such as discussion threads and concept search, are also available for documents imported from load files. This allows users to quickly discover documents in the load file that are conceptually similar to natively processed documents, for example.

2. Support for large scale reviews and productions

As the volume of electronically stored information (ESI) continues to grow, our customers find themselves reviewing and exporting more and more documents, and they need a solution that can cope with the massive growth in data. At the same time, they don’t want to spend large sums of money building a server farm in anticipation of the growth. They want the flexibility to add capacity when needed and remove it when not needed.

Clearwell’s scale-out architecture enables administrators to easily add appliances and allocate them to a particular matter and to a specific task using a point-and-click interface.

For example, if an administrator needs to increase the number of reviewers from 200 to 400 in order to meet a tight deadline, he or she can easily add 2 appliances to the cluster and assign them for review. Once the review completes, the administrator can now easily re-assign these appliances for production, allowing users to easily meet deadlines while reducing their overall hardware costs.

This flexibility allows our customers to maximize the use of their hardware resources while providing infinite review, export and production scalability.

3. Streamlined management of exports and productions

Clearwell provides powerful export options, and while our customers use them extensively for creating a variety of different production formats, they typically standardize on a few. Clearwell’s new case export and production templates provide a quick and easy way for case administrators to define the export format once and use it across multiple cases. When exporting documents, users can simply select a template from the list of visible templates in that case. This capability significantly reduces the overhead associated with managing export formats and allows our customers to produce documents in a consistent format across multiple matters.

Additionally, new production pre-mediation reports automatically identify problem documents and group them by issue type for quick resolution. This enables users to preemptively identify and resolve document production issues without delaying entire productions.

Says Wendy Butler Curtis, chair of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe’s eDiscovery Working Group, “Legal review is one of the most challenging phases of the eDiscovery process. As electronic data volumes continue to grow, it is increasingly important to leverage technologies that can streamline and improve legal review, ensure defensibility and reduce costs. Solutions like the Clearwell eDiscovery Platform enable legal teams to create an iterative eDiscovery workflow that allows for more efficient and effective large-scale review.”

We will be showcasing the new features at ILTA (Booth 816) this week in Nashville, so come see us and let us know what you think.

(Chitrang Shah is a Principal Product Manager at Clearwell Systems, now a part of Symantec, and the lead Product Manager for Clearwell’s Processing & Analysis and Review & Production Modules)

Assuming that you can buy each company for the same price, which would you acquire?

Company A has been in business 3 years, has 25 customers, no brand to speak of, and did about $5 million in revenue in the prior year; or,

Company B has been in business 7 years, has over 100 customers, a strong brand in its market, and is doing $25 million in annual revenue?

“No brainer,” you say, “obviously, Company B.” So it is that FTI looks to have got a great deal buying Attenex (Company B) today for $88 million, whereas Seagate looks like it grossly overpaid for Metalincs (Company A) which it bought for $82 million in December 2007. But things are not always as they appear, and there are good reasons why litigation support software company Attenex has sold for a paltry 3.5x revenue, a multiple well below the 16x commanded by Metalincs or even the 5x revenue that Iron Mountain paid for Stratify.

Three forces reduced Attenex’s acquisition price. The first is that FTI accounted for a large proportion of Attenex’s revenue. That gave FTI leverage over Attenex since it could say, “sell to us for $88 million, or we will take our business elsewhere, your revenue will plummet, and the value of your business will be greatly reduced.” This power that FTI had over Attenex made it the only logical acquirer, so there could be no pressure from other bidders to raise the purchase price.

The second force depressing Attenex’s valuation is that its revenue will likely decline post acquisition as Attenex’s partners (who compete with FTI) switch from Attenex to other solutions. Software investors value growth above all else – and are willing to pay up for it. For example, Bladelogic, an unprofitable software company, went public last year at a $500 million valuation with less trailing revenue than Attenex. But it did $62 million in revenue the following year (Bladelogic sold to BMC Software for $800 million in April 2008). Attenex, by contrast, will see declining revenue in the next 12 months.

Finally, acquirers worried that, since Attenex’s revenue comes almost entirely from its hosted offering via service providers, its revenue was more volatile than enterprise-oriented e-discovery software companies. This is due to the fact that customers (typically, law firms) purchase Attenex-powered services on a case-by-case basis and can switch away at any time. Enterprises, in contrast, purchase long-term software contracts that will not vary based on short-term changes in case volume.

Once these factors are taken into account, the price and the multiple start to look a lot better. Attenex’s founders, who are some of the pioneers of the e-discovery industry, get some well-earned liquidity; the venture investors make a decent return; and, employees get to join a professionally-run company that compensates its people well. My congratulations to the Attenex team, and to FTI which has negotiated a great deal.

Of course, all this says nothing about the deal’s impact on the broader e-discovery market. That will be the subject of my next post.

Learn More On Ediscovery Litigation.

As companies use Clearwell’s e-discovery solution on more and more cases, I often find myself speaking to their litigation support service providers. Other than being in the same industry, these service providers have nothing in common: they vary from small shops to large, national companies; from unprofessional cowboys to highly principled professionals. But despite these differences, they all say the same thing: theirs is a very tough industry.

Perhaps everyone says that, but in their case there are good reasons for believing it to be true. It is very hard to differentiate litigation support services, other than by price; law firms make for demanding customers; barriers to entry are low so there’s constant price pressure from new entrants; and, it can take a long time to get paid, given that you are at the end of a long chain (enterprises must first pay law firms who then pay service providers).

That led me to wonder, “What would I do, if I were in their shoes?” The answer is that I would seek to differentiate my service by leveraging technology to swim upstream.

Neither of these ideas (leveraging technology, moving upstream) is original in its own right. Every litigation support service provider leverages technology in some way or other, and many have even built their own in-house review platforms. The larger ones have also sought in one way or another to swim upstream, meaning sell to their customer’s customer (the enterprise) directly rather than to law firms who then sell their services to enterprises.

But what service providers historically have not done is combine the two ideas: i.e., use technology as the means by which they can more easily sell to the enterprise. To paraphrase what the bright, forward-looking CEO of one service provider recently told me: “If I can get technology into the enterprise behind the firewall, then that makes my corporate accounts more “sticky”. It makes it easier for them to export data into my review platform and more likely they will use my services on any given case.” This technology does not have to be developed in-house; service providers can partner and integrate with providers of corporate e-discovery solutions to achieve the same effect.

My respect for litigation support service providers has only increased as I have come to appreciate the severe market pressures under which they operate. So has my excitement for the opportunity before them. Litigation support services is a large, fragmented, growing industry –- a level playing field in which service providers who innovate can see large returns.