e-discovery 2.0

The Chinese philosopher, Lao-tzu, once said “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”  This truism has been applied in a myriad of ways over the years, but it applies with equal measure to the process of taming the multifaceted challenge that is electronic discovery.  Simply put, conquering e-discovery is always a journey.  And for enterprises like The Home Depot, they know first hand that you can’t simply look at the end result and wish for the journey to be complete.  Instead, it’s paramount to embrace all the steps along the path and develop good habits that work both for the first and the last mile.

Many enterprises clearly understand the benefits of in-house discovery that include lower processing and review costs, earlier access to case facts, better control over the processes, etc.  But some struggle with how to begin their journey, for any number of reasons (lack of knowledgeable staff, failure to get executive buy-in, inability to build a compelling business case, etc.).  Fortunately, the folks at Home Depot have recently completed their journey and have offered to share secrets they leveraged throughout the process.

In a similar fashion to best selling author’s Stephen R. Covey’s “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” David Steel, Sr. Counsel and Barbara Squires, Paralegal at The Home Depot will host a web seminar to walk us through the some of the e-discovery habits that helped them successfully navigate their way through the process.  The web seminar is titled “5 Habits to Create a Highly Effective In-House E-Discovery Process” and it’s free to attend. Since we don’t want to steal their thunder, we won’t divulge their habits now, but suffice it to say that every company can learn from their experiences.  And, after the web seminar I’ll devote more blog time to further expansion of each habit.

Since it’s our raison d’être to help companies complete their e-discovery journey, we’re excited to have The Home Depot on to share stories from their journey, all in the hope that others, just embarking on their own expedition, can be just as successful.

When I first started working in the electronic discovery industry, I quickly learned two things about Summation: it has a huge installed base of law firm customers, and they all dislike using Summation’s products. It was feedback from these unhappy customers that led companies like Clearwell and kCura/Relativity to enter the review market, and the results are plain to see. While Clearwell and kCura/Relativity are both growing rapidly, Summation has suffered years of declining revenue.

Several people have pointed to poor marketing as the problem, and it’s true most customers are confused. Summation’s products all have different names (iBlaze, Discovery Cracker, CaseVault, CaseVantage), and it is unclear how they relate to one another. But the problem is more fundamental than just marketing. There has been no innovation from Summation for years; its products are difficult to use; and, they don’t integrate with each other. So, naturally, customers switch to more compelling solutions, revenue declines, management cuts costs, talented people leave, service levels deteriorate, more customers defect, and the cycle repeats.

As the management teams at Silicon Graphics, Siebel, or Yahoo! can tell you, once a technology company faces this death spiral, it’s very, very hard to turn things around. But that’s exactly what AccessData must do for its recent acquisition of Summation to work.

On the face of it, you would not expect AccessData to be capable of addressing Summation’s problems. As the #2 player in the forensics market to Guidance Software, it has no experience in legal review. Its customers are enterprises and government agencies, not law firms or litigation support service providers. Its headquarters is in Lindon (Utah), whereas Summation based is in San Francisco. But AccessData has a capable team, and must have some plan in mind. What is it likely to do? My guess is as follows:

• Claim “end-to-end” in the enterprise market: AccessData will likely bundle the iBlaze review platform with its own forensic collection products (FTK) and claim end-to-end coverage of the EDRM model. The products obviously don’t integrate with one another, or even have the same UI, but some customers may not realize how important that is until after they have purchased. This is the same strategy used by Autonomy, which also puts together disparate products (Aungate, Introspect, etc.) and markets them as an integrated package.

• Promote CaseVault and CaseVantage in the law firm market: These hosted review platforms are not widely used. AccessData will be hoping that with better marketing and sales execution, it can drive adoption of them by law firms and litigation support service providers. But most providers today seem pretty happy with Clearwell and/or kCura Relativity, so it’s unclear why they would switch away to CaseVault / CaseVantage.

• Cut costs: On the day the acquisition closed last month, AccessData fired most of Summation’s engineers. That’s understandable, given the shrinking revenue. But it only accelerates the death spiral. With no engineers, it’s impossible to innovate or improve the products.

• Sunset iBlaze product lines: This sounds radical since, according to Katey Wood at the451 Group, iBlaze accounts for 70% of Summation’s revenue. But AccessData may decide to focus its development efforts on CaseVault and CaseVantage, ceasing all investment in iBlaze. Effectively, this means it would “milk” the law firms using iBlaze, and pitch enterprises a product with no real roadmap for improvement. Given how far iBlaze has fallen behind, there is a strong argument that further investments are probably just throwing good money after bad.

It will take a few months before we can say for sure whether these, or other, changes will make any difference. If the experience of other companies is any guide, they may slow the decline for a while, but not reverse it. After all, there may be some people out there using Silicon Graphics computers to access their Siebel CRM systems or search the web on Yahoo, just like there will be some using Summation’s products for document review. But there are fewer and fewer every day.

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.

There are many barriers preventing the creation of a new product category, especially in the legal industry. The biggest is inertia, since most people prefer to leverage the tools they have, both on grounds of cost (why spend money on something new?) and familiarity (who wants to spend time learning a new workflow?). A second barrier is risk-aversion, since the consequences of errors in the legal world can be severe for all concerned. A third is insensitivity to cost, since service providers simply pass on expenses to their corporate clients. When safety and risk mitigation rank above efficiency on the hierarchy of needs, there’s not much incentive to try new technology.

Yet, despite all these barriers, in the past few years “early case assessment” (ECA) has emerged as a product category. In a typical workflow, ECA products are used after collection and before review, to assess case facts and estimate the scope of electronic discovery. Whereas collection typically occurs within the corporation, and review is usually conducted by outside counsel, ECA bridges the two, and can occur either in-house or via an outsourced model. Either way, it leads to better case strategies, more effective discussions at the “Meet and Confer”, and fewer nasty surprises in downstream review.

How has this happened? Why has ECA been able to establish itself as a product category despite the barriers? There are two answers to that question, each of which is completely different.

One answer is that ECA possesses the unique combination of characteristics needed to create a new category. It capitalizes on macro trends, such as the growth in electronically stored information which makes it impossible to review every document, as occurred in a paper-based world. It’s disruptive, meaning it has completely new functionality, such as transparent search, that other products do not. And, it reduces the overall expense of litigation discovery, by giving savvy litigators the information they need to make better decisions earlier in the case. This cocktail of factors led to initial market traction from sophisticated corporations and law firms, which led to positive word-of-mouth and analyst coverage, which, in turn, educated the broader the market.

The second answer takes the opposite perspective: ECA may be a product category but, because of the barriers listed above, it’s a nascent one. No ECA is performed on the vast majority of data. Instead, the traditional workflow is still used in most cases, whereby service providers blindly run keywords, load the resulting dataset into a review platform, and hire a legion of contract attorneys to sift through it. This is changing over time, but new methodologies do not catch on overnight.

In my view, both answers are correct. Today, ECA is growing rapidly as a part of a workflow that emphasizes data minimization to lower costs. That’s spurred on by corporations who are acutely cost sensitive and increasingly taking control over the processing, analysis, and review phases of the e-discovery process. But inertia remains a huge factor, and ECA is still a small fraction of the total market.

From a historical perspective, this is to be expected. Five years ago, virtually no one did ECA; five years from now, everyone will do it, just as they all do collection and review. The only open questions are how quickly we move from one state to the other, and who will benefit from the change.

Part IV of this series on reducing e-discovery costs described how bringing e-discovery in-house can reduce costs.  One of the major decision points when in-sourcing e-discovery is to decide which parts of the e-discovery process should be in-sourced.  In making this decision, each company should look at the nature of their e-discovery process today, which parts of the e-discovery workflow they currently perform in-house, if any at all, and which are currently outsourced.  They should then look at which outsourced parts would produce the best return on investment (ROI) if in-sourced.

When most companies look at their current litigation software process, they often find that they are already in-sourcing the first stages of e-discovery: identification, preservation and collection.  While there are some companies that will occasionally outsource these steps, especially when there is a need to perform forensic collections, most sizable companies are already doing most of these steps themselves, though often advised by outside counsel.  For example, most companies will identify the custodians and sources of electronically stored information (ESI) in conjunction with outside counsel.  Litigation hold notices will be sent internally and data will be collected by the company’s IT, legal IT and/or internal forensic/investigations team.  It is typically at this point that e-discovery moves outside the company as the data is transferred to a litigation support service provider and/or law firm who perform processing, analysis, review, and production.

When a company takes a look at how they can reduce their e-discovery costs, they are most often looking at two high-level options:

1. Whether they can streamline their existing internal identification, preservation and collection processes
2. Whether they should bring processing, analysis, review and/or production in-house

There are of course exceptions to this.  Some companies do outsource their collection for example, especially when collection might need to be done in remote offices.  But the majority of companies seem to fall in the above categories.  Distinguishing these two options is important because the ROI analysis and decision-making process related to streamlining an existing process is very different than the analysis and decision-making related to bringing a process in-house.

When performing an ROI analysis of these different options, one typically comes to two conclusions.  The first is that both are often ROI positive projects.  The second is that in-sourcing some aspects of processing, analysis and review is far and away the biggest “bang for the buck” project that most companies can undertake when it comes to reducing e-discovery costs.  The biggest reason for the second conclusion is that the majority of the costs incurred during e-discovery are processing and review costs.  In a previous post where we analyzed e-discovery costs, we found that processing and review typically represent over 90% of these costs.  As a result, in-sourcing some or all aspects of processing, analysis and review can save very significant amounts of external processing fees and attorney review costs.  In contrast, while there can be real savings to improving and automating identification, preservation and collection, the size of savings pales in comparison because these steps represent less than 10% of the total cost of e-discovery.

The best approach to reducing e-discovery costs, of course, would be to do both of these projects: improve identification, preservation and collection as well as in-source processing, analysis and review.  However, if you have to sequence these projects or pick only one (a popular requirement in this economy) then in-sourcing processing, analysis and review is the one to pick.

As the Mark Twain quote goes, there are “lies, damn lies and statistics.”  In this case, however, and regardless of the exact numbers, two recent surveys provide some very interesting directional trending.  The first is Fulbright & Jaworski’s 6^th Annual Litigation Trends Survey.  In addition to covering a range of general and vertically oriented topics, they also focus on electronic discovery specifically.  Not surprisingly, reducing e-discovery costs bubbles up to the top of the list as major initiatives for most respondents.  Interestingly though, remediation plans attacking this problem seem to fall into two different camps.  On the one hand, 24% of respondents plan on outsourcing certain e-discovery tasks further leveraging preferred partners.  Conversely, the method that leads the pack (at a whopping 47%) is the corporate initiative of taking components of e-discovery in-house.  Other methods were listed, but most didn’t appear to have critical mass, including: using clawback agreements more, enforcing document retention policies, and negotiating with the opposition over the scope of discovery.

Similarly, Clearwell Systems recently conducted a survey in partnership with analyst firm Enterprise Strategy Group titled Trends in Electronic Discovery – A Market Perspective, which attempted to pinpoint similar pain points and solutions. The questions focused more on 2010 planning and they found a general expectation of more litigation/regulatory inquiries where 53% of the respondents expect the number of lawsuits and regulatory inquiries to increase by at least 20% in 2010, with 13% of respondents planning for an increase of 50 percent or more.  Again, not surprisingly, many plan on attacking this increase in litigation (and the corresponding e-discovery costs) by bring parts of the process in house.  In fact, 48% indicated that they currently have an active project to bring segments of the e-discovery process in-house. And for those that aren’t currently in the building process, 87% of respondents plan to budget for technology that specifically supports the electronic discovery process in 2010.

Given the length of time required for planning, RFPs and e-discovery tool procurement, clearly time is of the essence for companies that want to take advantage of internal solutions in the 2010 time frame.  Failure to get off the dime means that an enterprise is more likely to get caught in the middle of deliberation, versus deployment.

Part I of this series on reducing e-discovery costs discussed a number of approaches for managing e-discovery costs.  The third approach suggested in the original article is to bring e-discovery in-house.  This means taking some e-discovery tasks that were previously conducted by external organizations, such as e-discovery service providers or outside law firms, and performing them using in-house enterprise e-discovery software, and/or people.

How does bringing e-discovery in-house reduce costs?  The way in-sourcing e-discovery reduces costs is fairly straightforward.  It simply is a way to take variable costs and convert them into fixed costs.  If the variable costs are incurred frequently enough, then the sum of the variable costs will at some point become higher than the fixed costs.  In this case, a company bringing e-discovery in-house reduces costs by investing in fixed cost in-house software and/or people and using these to reduce the amount of variable e-discovery legal and service provider fees.  Over time, the savings from these reduced fees outstrip the cost of the original investment.

Cost is, of course, not the only factor that must be considered when a corporation, or law firm, decides to bring e-discovery in-house.  There are additional benefits as well as additional challenges.  Some of the additional benefits include:

• Increased visibility into costs and schedule: you’ll have a better idea about the specific costs and duration of e-discovery and how they relate to the overall management of the matter.
• Increased control of process and data: better visibility and in-house tools and/or people give you greater control over the conduct of e-discovery, so there’s less finger-pointing.  In-sourcing also allows you to keep control of your data avoiding the risk of entrusting it to third parties.
• Greater efficiencies: over time, in-sourcing allows you to build up data, processes and experience that will reduce costs further over time.  Instead of potentially training new people or adapting new software to your company’s business and processes every case, you’ll build an expertise that will lead to greater efficiency.  It also be easier to retain your work product and reduce the times when, for example, a document is inadvertently re-collected, processed, analyzed, reviewed and produce when it already from produced for a different matter.

Some of the challenges of bringing e-discovery in-house include:

• Risk: Risk is often the biggest concern when a company considers in-sourcing.  Many corporations feel that in-sourcing could increase their liability and risk of sanctions because if something goes wrong, they are more responsible.  The reality, of course, is that if something goes wrong the corporation often bears much of the liability even if e-discovery is out-sourced.  There are also ways to mitigate risks, which is typically more related to people in-sourcing not software.
• Expertise: how do you find the right people and software to perform e-discovery in-house?  This can be challenge but there are now many good options.  The first is to hire expertise from service providers or law firms.  The second is in-source only the software and continue to use outside people.  This is an approach worth discussing in more detail.
• Overhead: many corporations are concerned that bringing in software will require a large investment in people and an increase in operational costs, potentially out-weighing the variable cost savings.  Fortunately, e-discovery software has improved such that the best software does not result in a significant increase in overhead, and the savings from reduced service costs more than offset any additional overhead.

In recent months, a large number of organizations have analyzed all of the benefits and challenges of bringing e-discovery in-house.  The results have been both unsurprising and somewhat surprising.  Unsurprisingly, what most of these companies have found is that bringing parts of the e-discovery process in-house makes a lot of sense if the company has a fairly consistent case load from litigation and/or internal investigations.  More surprisingly, many companies have also determined that bringing e-discovery software in-house can often pay for itself with just one large case.  The first finding suggests that, as one might suspect, most Fortune 500 companies and large government organizations, should be taking a look at bringing e-discovery in-house.  The second finding though suggests that it’s not just the Fortune 500 that should be taking a hard look at in-sourcing.  If bringing parts of e-discovery in-house can pay for itself on one large case, then many organizations, not just the Fortune 500 should be taking a hard look at e-discovery in-sourcing.  When they do, one of the big questions that each organization needs to answer is what part of the e-discovery process do I want to in-source?  That will be the subject of my next post.

Earlier today, Clearwell announced Version 5.0 of its e-discovery platform. Unlike prior versions which focused on processing, early case analysis, and first-pass review, this release extends Clearwell’s capabilities in two directions: upstream, by adding pre-processing; and downstream, by adding document-by-document review and production. I wanted to say a few words about what motivated these changes, and why the new release greatly increases Clearwell’s value to enterprises, government agencies, law firms, and litigation support service providers.

Over the past year, the benefits of early case analysis and first pass review have driven hundreds of companies to adopt Clearwell. They have saved huge amounts of money and time, and often become evangelists for the product. But despite that, we continually hear that the overall e-discovery process remains expensive, unpredictable, and risky. When we investigated why, we found the problem lies less in the features of the products being used than in the number of products used.

Once data is collected, a typical e-discovery process today may involve as many 4 different tools: one for filtering by custodians or date range, another for de-duplication and keyword search, another for load file creation, and yet another for review and production. Each time data moves between these tools, and there’s a handoff from one to another, there’s the risk that document counts do not tie out, data does not convert correctly, or any of a hundred other things go wrong. This risk is magnified by the fact that e-discovery is highly iterative: custodians are often added or keywords changed as new information comes to light, forcing people to redo many steps of the process. As a result, timelines are unpredictable and it’s hard to stick to a budget, even with extensive project management which itself is not cheap.

Since the problem lies in the handoffs between different products, it’s impossible to solve this problem by making any one part of the process better. The only solution is to have a single product that can manage collected data from soup (filtering / pre-processing) to nuts (production). Prior to today’s announcement, that product did not exist: there was no single, integrated product that could do everything from process data to review and produce it. And that, in summary, is why Clearwell is releasing Version 5.0.

With Clearwell’s new product, there are no handoffs, no uncertainty about how long it will take to export out of one tool and into another. There’s no need to cobble together a string of different products or train lawyers on multiple different interfaces and workflows. As a result, the risks of cost overruns or missed deadlines are greatly reduced.

To our mind, this is just part of a natural evolutionary process that affects many markets, not just e-discovery. Who wants to carry a Palm Pilot, iPod, and a mobile phone when you can carry a single device like the iPhone? Who wants a cable receiver and a TiVo when you can get both in a single set-top box?  As markets mature, there develops a logical package of functionality that customers prefer to buy from a single, integrated provider.

You can sign up for a product demonstration at our website, or come see the product at ILTA next week (Booth 606). Take a look – and let us know what you think.

Part I of this series on managing e-discovery costs discussed a number of approaches for reducing e-discovery costs.  One of the approaches is to perform early case assessments.  Pioneered by Dupont and others, the objective of this approach is to learn a substantial percentage of the key case facts within a short period of time so that the litigation team can make better decisions quicker.  There are a number of good sources for information on what is early case assessment (ECA) and how to conduct ECAs including John DeGroote’s articles on the Settlement Perspectives blog, Eric L. Barnum’s “An Introduction to Early Case Assessment” and Dean Gonsowski’s Early Case Assessment article on this blog.  The point that these articles make is that early case assessment is a different approach to litigation that can significantly reduce the overall cost of litigation and electronic discovery.

As Mr. DeGroote highlights, the two main benefits of ECA are: better settlements and better case management.  First, ECA enables the litigation team to make a better decision as to whether to settle or not by giving the team an enhanced understanding of the costs and benefits of settling.  Early case assessment also provides the team with valuable information for negotiating the best possible settlement with the other side.  Second, even if the case is not settled, ECA can reduce costs through improved case management.  For example, e-discovery costs can be better managed by targeting discovery efforts to reduce the data reviewed and by improved planning and budgeting.  Overall, Dupont estimates that, by performing early case assessment on 18 of their cases, they reduced their costs by over a third.

Given the clear benefits of early case assessments, one would expect that early case assessments would be the norm.  However, as Mr. Gonsowski points out, this doesn’t appear to be the case.  Mr. Gonsowski points out that one of the reasons for this “may lie in a common litigation mindset:  i.e., the desire to avoid costs for as long as possible.”  This makes sense and I would venture to suggest some additional reasons.  First, ECA can be hard to do, especially when it comes to the e-discovery piece of ECA.  Traditional lead-times for performing collection, processing and loading electronic documents into a review platform are measured in weeks or months.  And because ECA works best when analysis is performed iteratively (e.g. start with a small, targeted set of documents, analyze them, use that analysis to target additional information, and repeat) and often ideally on-site, this long cycle time can shackle the efficient execution of an early case assessment strategy.  Second, ECA can be too expensive, again using traditional approaches.  If a company spends too much money on an early case assessment, they might be less inclined to settle because of how much they have spent already.

Recent advances in electronic discovery software, however, are addressing these issues and making it easier to perform early case assessments.  This newer software, which can often be installed on-site as well as in a hosted fashion, can be used to review data within hours of it being collected and often provides content analysis technology that speeds up analysis to help attorneys find the critical information faster.  The lower cycle time allows for prioritized and iterative analysis largely removing technology constraints from the adoption of early case assessment methodology.  This newer ECA software is also less expensive because it is more automated and easy-to-use than traditional technology.

An early case assessment case study of Holme, Roberts & Owen’s (HRO) experience performing an early case assessment, is a good example of what is now possible with new software solutions.  HRO was representing a client who was facing a time-critical false advertising lawsuit. With expedited discovery ordered and a motion for a preliminary injunction pending, the attorneys at HRO had less than two weeks to gather and analyze the underlying documentation and determine case strategy. Leveraging new e-discovery software, HRO was able to perform the early case assessment in days and at cost much lower than traditional means.  The ECA ultimately enabled HRO to conclude the matter on a favorable basis for their client saving significant costs that would have been incurred if they had been required to continue the litigation.

As the HRO case study shows, early case assessments have become a powerful method for reducing not only e-discovery costs but also overall litigation costs.  Any corporation looking to lower their e-discovery and litigation costs would do well to consider adopting early case assessment methodology where practical.  How do you expect the frequency of practicing ECA to change over the next year?  Please take a moment to fill out our poll.

Unfortunately, though, early case assessments are also not a silver bullet solution to the e-discovery cost problem because some cases are going to require full discovery and will go to trial no matter what.  To address these costs, other methods are required.

Part I of this series discussed a number of approaches for reducing electronic discovery costs.  One of the approaches is to implement a document retention policy.  The popularity of document retention policies increased in the early part of the decade with the passage of new financial regulation, such as Sarbanes-Oaxley.  Data retention policy popularity has now increased again with the passage of the FRCP and the recognition of the challenge of electronic discovery costs.  How effective, though, are document retention policies in reducing electronic discovery costs?  Do they solve the electronic discovery cost problem?

It is certainly true that any policy that enforces the deletion of documents that might otherwise be discoverable should reduce electronic discovery costs.  Thus, document retention policies, just like enforced mailbox size limits, can absolutely help reduce e-discovery costs.  However, implementing a retention policy is not easy.  A recent article in the New York Law Journal by Adam Rosman is very insightful in this regard when he says, “the rub is implementation.”   Mr. Rosman outlines a conversation between a hypothetical company’s Associate General Counsel and the CTO that demonstrates that the major challenge with retention policies is not designing one.  Rather, the challenge is implementing a policy that effectively balances the needs for litigation readiness and e-discovery, regulatory compliance and knowledge management and can be cost-effectively enforced throughout a company’s IT organization and user community.  Given this, it’s not surprising that a 2006 study by Nextpage and CXO research found that “while two-thirds of the companies surveyed have a document retention policy in effect, almost half of them don’t actively enforce it” and why 39% of respondents cited implementing a standard policy and 34% percent said user compliance were major weaknesses in implementing retention policies.

Because of these implementation challenges, retention policies are not a quick way to reduce your e-discovery costs.  They are also not going to reduce enough data to solve an organization’s e-discovery cost “problem.”  First, due to the implementation challenges, retention policies are not going to delete all the electronically stored information (ESI) they should.  Second, HIPAA, Sarbanes-Oaxley (SOX) and FINRA regulations require that many documents must be retained for several years.  Finally, business users will demand many exceptions: emails, loose files, collaboration content, financial records, contracts, etc. that they want to save beyond the retention period for important business reasons.  As a result, even companies with retention policies are going to have a substantial and growing amount of discoverable ESI and the electronic discovery costs that go with that.

Document retention policies thus are a bit like taking vitamins.  They are likely going to help reduce the amount of time you are sick – although you’ll probably find some “studies” that say they do help and some that don’t.  But when you get sick, they aren’t going to make you better.  For that, you need a remedy that directly targets the specific problem.  Similarly, document retention policies, and you can say the same thing about all information management solutions to e-discovery, will help reduce e-discovery costs, but they won’t solve the e-discovery cost problem.  Specific e-discovery solutions are necessary to do that.  We’ll discuss many of these specific e-discovery solutions in the next set of posts in this series.