e-discovery 2.0

Recently, I moderated a panel at the Masters Conference with John Loveland, Sonya Thornton, and Bruce Markowitz entitled: How Defensible is Your E-Discovery Process? (Click here to read a summary of the panel.) It was well attended, and I think that the draw (aside from the esteemed panel) was that this topic still remains very vexing for most practitioners.

Initially, we started at ground zero with the notion that defensibility is in most instances equated with the “reasonableness” standard, which is pervasive across many areas of the EDRM spectrum… from preservation to production.  Instances include:

• Preservation — “[a]s soon as a potential claim is . . . identified, a party is under a duty to preserve evidence which it knows, or reasonably should know, is relevant to the future litigation.”
• FRE 502 (b) – the disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a Federal or State proceeding if the (2) the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure;
• General Privilege Waiver — In SEC v. Badian, 2009 WL 222783 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2009)(link), “there is no basis … to conclude that there were precautions [to prevent the disclosure], let alone whether they were reasonable.”
• FRCP 37(e) — Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.

While the foregoing isn’t exhaustive it does highlight the persistent nature of the reasonableness standard as practitioners seek a defensibility sanctuary.  The good news is that the law doesn’t require perfection and there are also a number of ways to obtain reasonable defensibility:

• Demonstrable acceptance by the opposition – here the notion is that collaboration with the opposition allows the parties to comfortably move ahead with their discovery process and even if it’s not objectively reasonable, the parties consent to the protocol will in most instances carry an imprimatur of reasonableness.
• Auditing / process transparency.  Similar to the first bullet, auditing the process and giving the opposition visibility into the process steps will often make it hard for them to lodge successful downstream challenges.
• Adherence to Local Rules (See 7th Circuit Pilot Program) or judicial order.  Another avenue than can provide some degree of safety is compliance with a discovery protocol mandated by local rules, although that compliance may ultimately be challenged.
• Statistical confidence intervals / sampling – the use of statistics as a way to bolster process defensibility is starting to come to maturity and in the future I think that detailed precision, recall and other statistical indicates will play a large role in e-discovery defensibility.

None of these steps can be guaranteed to really get you off the hook from a rapid opposing party calling foul, but using them in a “belt and suspenders” fashion will certainly help buttress any discovery process.

For more illumination on the topic please see the following video of my interview with John Loveland, who’s waxing poetically about discovery defensibility.

On of August 14, 2009, the California Judicial Counsel amended their Rules of Court to augment discussion of electronic discovery issues during the meet and confer process.

Rule of Court 3.724 was amended to require discussion of “Any issues relating to the discovery of electronically stored information” no later than 30 calendar days before the date set for the initial case management conference.  The broad language (i.e., “any”) was augmented by eight specific categories that must be expressly discussed:

(A) Issues relating to the preservation of discoverable electronically stored information;

(B) The form or forms in which information will be produced;

(C) The time within which the information will be produced;

(D) The scope of discovery of the information;

(E) The method for asserting or preserving claims of privilege or attorney work product, including whether such claims may be asserted after production;

(F) The method for asserting or preserving the confidentiality, privacy, trade secrets, or proprietary status of information relating to a party or person not a party to the civil proceedings;

(G) How the cost of production of electronically stored information is to be allocated among the parties;

(H) Any other issues relating to the discovery of electronically stored information, including developing a proposed plan relating to the discovery of the information;

Many of these issues track FRCP language (including forms of production, preservation, privilege issues, etc.).  However, section G seems somewhat novel given the historical “American Rule” where the producing party is required to bear all necessary costs of production.

Curiously missing, in comparison with FRCP 26 B(2)(b), is the need to discuss the handling of “inaccessible” ESI, although this could easily be subsumed in the “any other issues” language of section H.  Also missing is a discussion about proposed searching and/culling protocols (aka “keyword negotiations”) which are often part of the core meet and confer topics in Federal court.

Nevertheless, the scope is broad enough to require *a* discussion of all likely relevant electronic discovery issues, which was often lacking historically.  Once that discussion starts, reasonably savvy counsel should be able to flesh out most of the significant issues.  And, given this broad language a judge would presumably give them a hard time for any material omissions.

There are legions of Arnold Schwarzenegger quotes, including the famous “I’ll be back” from The Terminator.  Well, true to this sentiment, The Governator finally coughed up his hairball and made good on the promises to push through California’s long overdue alignment with the electronic discovery changes made by the FRCP on 12/1/2006.

Citing mysterious budgetary concerns (which still elude me), The Governator initially vetoed Assembly Bill No. 5.  But as of July 1^st, California’s new electronic discovery provisions were finally made law.  Interestingly enough, California (which tends to more progressive than most) was way behind the times in terms of adopting the new framework of the FRCP…

“The California Discovery Act hadn’t really been revised or amended since the mid-1980s,” said Patrick O’Donnell, the supervising attorney for the Judicial Council’s Office of the General Counsel who led efforts to write the state’s e-discovery law. “This is really a major step to address the changes in the world of electronic data since then. … This gives a lot more clarity and certainty in how the issue will be focused on.”

Instead of the alleged budgetary concerns it appeared that California had (and still has) bigger fish to fry and needed some extra cycles to get lawmakers, attorneys, Silicon Valley leaders and court administrators all on the same page.

The new California provisions pretty closely mirror the FRCP language with a few minor exceptions, called out by Joshua M. Briones and Anahit Tagvoryan in their recent article…

• Minor tweaks to the Rule 37 language around the safe harbor provisions broadening slightly (beyond “loss”) the California language to also preclude sanctions where ESI is “lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten.”
• No corresponding meet & confer provisions in the California statute similar to the Rule 16 and 26 sections in the FRCP.
• Inaccessibility provisions of FRCP 26(b)(2)(B) changed slightly to require producing party to file a protective order for ESI it believes is not reasonably accessible due to “undue burden or expense.”

While a long time in the offing, these provisions (despite the minor tweaks) should be a refreshing change for California practitioners who’ve been waiting too long for the other shoe to drop.  Now, case law can start to develop, which will continue the honing-in process…

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.

Lately, the electronic discovery blogosphere has been, well, a-twitter about twitter and other social media as they relate to electronic discovery. While twitter struggles to find a business model, enterprises and law firms are racing to understand the implications of this latest boomtown of user-generated content that’s being built in out on the frontier of the World Wide Web (or is that Wild Wild West?).

There’s talk of intellectual property being cast out, irrevocably, onto the Internet for all to see. Or slanderous things being uttered for which your company may be held liable. But, hold on a second: is there really anything new here? Anyone heard of e-mail? Web pages? Peer-to-peer? Google? Instant messaging? As Debra Logan astutely points out in her recent post on the topic, “everything that exists is discoverable (at least pretty much).” If you haven’t already, take a look at the FRCP’s definition of ESI and you’ll get her point. So, yes, it’s obviously important to have a common sense corporate policy around what’s appropriate and what’s not for the public Internet, but it shouldn’t be any different from the policy that you should have already had in place regarding blogs, web pages, and email.

What about the other side of the electronic discovery coin: finding information that’s responsive to a request? If anything, social media are more easily discoverable than just about any other form of user-generated content (though admittedly in some cases they can be more transient, which can post unique challenges). And, while it’s not universally true, the argument can be made that the more easily something can be discovered, the lower the cost and risk of that content to you. Worried if anyone on twitter is stealing your new idea for a router architecture? How about the top-secret approach to making coffee you were thinking about patenting? Well, if anyone twittered about it, tracking it down is a snap. Just keep in mind that because of the public nature of social media, it’s likely that the more important the information is to your company in the context of electronic discovery, the less likely it is to live out on the public Internet. Obviously, there will be exceptions. But when there are those exceptions, tracking down the relevant information will likely be a fairly straightforward and relatively inexpensive process.

However, before we dismiss social media as nothing new and something that can largely be addressed through already-existing policies and discovery techniques, let’s consider one aspect of social media that is on the upswing, but often out of the blogging limelight: enterprise applications.

Increasingly, companies are moving to advanced enterprise social media platforms such as Jive or SocialText as a way of improving internal collaboration and making projects run more smoothly and effectively. Because such enterprise platforms are often used on a company’s most important and strategic projects, having robust e-discovery capabilities to allow internal blog, wiki, and discussion content to be captured and placed into a format that can be seamlessly searched along with other more traditional documents is becoming critical to forward-thinking enterprises.

For example, I recently came across a large financial institution that uses Jive SBS as its wiki and Clearwell as its e-discovery solution. What surprised me is that this company has created its own Jive/Clearwell “adapter” that feeds Jive discussions directly into Clearwell as a conversation thread. This is just one example, but I’m sure more will follow. Over time, it will become a requirement for e-discovery platforms to integrate with enterprise social media products. And, rest assured, as that happens, we’ll be sure to tweet about it!

UPDATE: Whit Andrews of Gartner was kind enough point out his (prescient) research note on the subject of e-discovery and social networking from November, 2007. He points out that there is in fact a very important “new new thing” about social networks, which is that they may be able to be leveraged in an e-discovery context to find out more about the people relevant to an investigation. By tapping these publically-available sources of information, investigators may be able to gain better insight into private (i.e. enterprise) information stores to guide the e-discovery process. More detail on this and other insights can be found at http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=543110&ref=g_forward&call=email.

I was at the Sedona Conference Working Group’s Mid Year meeting last week where 80 or so electronic discovery practitioners and judges met to discuss hot topics in bucolic Denver, Colorado.  Without getting into the particulars of any discussion, several themes continue to stay on the front burner, including the progress of the cooperation proclamation and the relatively newer issue of proportionality (as highlighted recently by The American College of Trial Lawyers Task Force on Discovery).

Aside from those overarching themes I was struck by how polarizing the discussion was around one recent case in particular.  While many notable commentators have already made this the most talked about cases of the year, Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 2009 WL 910801 (D. Utah Mar. 30, 2009) continues to stimulate discussion.   Adams v. Dell is a patent infringement case where the plaintiff, alleged that one of the defendants (ASUS) destroyed critical pieces of evidence and should be sanctioned accordingly.

The underlying facts and timelines are fairly complex, but in summary the dispute centered around the alleged infringement of several patents developed to resolve defects in floppy disks during in the late 80’s.  What makes this decision so vexing is that it starts out as a preservation case, but quickly confuses that concept with data retention and information management practices/policies.

So, starting with the preservation angle…  Both sides fortunately agreed about the definition for the duty to preserve evidence, which in the 10^th circuit begins when a party “knows or should know [it] is relevant to imminent or ongoing litigation.”  The triggering of the preservation duty was not surprisingly much more complicated and ASUS (the responding party) claimed that its duty to preserve wasn’t triggered until early 2005, when they received a letter warning it of potential litigation because of the alleged patent infringement.  But, the Magistrate held that “counsel’s letter is not the inviolable benchmark” and the duty to preserve was triggered much earlier (in the 1999-2000 time frame) because similar litigation was rampant in the industry, highlighted by a late 1999 suit where Toshiba paid billions of dollars in a class action settlement related to similar floppy disk issues.

Leaving the murky preservation issue by the wayside for a bit, the Magistrate then moved into ASUS’ claims that FRCP 37(e) provided a safe harbor for its alleged destruction.

“ASUS claims it can find a safe harbor against sanctions because of the recently adopted rule that sanctions may not be generally imposed for ‘failing to provide electronically stored information lost’ if a party can show the loss was ‘a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.’”

Nice try, but strike two for ASUS…

“ASUS provided an extensive declaration from an experienced consultant in e-discovery. While he stated the reasons for and history of ASUS’ ‘distributed information architecture,’ he did not state any opinion as to the reasonableness or good-faith in the system’s operation. And while he says ‘ASUSTeK’s data architecture relies predominantly on storage on individual user’s workstations,’ his 31-page declaration does not show he is familiar with the precise practices pointed out in the declarations of employees. Those employees’ declarations describe the practice of ASUS’ email system to overwrite old data regardless of its significance; ASUS’ reliance on employees for all email and data archiving; and the process of replacement of computers, which also relies on employees to transfer data from their old to their new computers. Neither the expert nor ASUS speak of archiving ‘policies;’ they speak of archiving ‘practices.’

The court’s distinction between “policies” and “practices” seems like a convenient (perhaps “Deus ex machina”) way to discount ASUS’ data retention activities and prevent the use of the FRCP 37(e) safe harbor.  Since in most instances, “bona fide, consistent and reasonable” document retention “policies” have been found to be presumptively valid by everyone ranging from Sedona (Guideline 3) to Carlucci v. Piper Aircraft Corp. and Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 125 S.Ct. 2129 (2005).  It’s not clear how he draws the important “practices” distinction and why said practices are exponentially different from presumptively valid “policies.”

It’s precisely this line of thinking that confuses the alleged failure of the duty to preserve (discussed at the outset of the opinion) with the duty to retain information.  The court seems to think it’s an “unreasonable” practice to have custodians responsible for compliance with data retention and this deficiency made the safe harbor unavailable.

“ASUS has explained that it has no centralized storage of electronic documents, email or otherwise, and relies on individual employees to archive email (which will be deleted if left on the server) and electronic documents (which reside only on individual workstations).”

Not only is this custodian-based retention practice, in and of itself, reasonable; it’s probably the most common form of data retention practices seen at corporations today.  While a number of vendors have promised intelligent retention systems that work without any significant human intervention, for the most part those solutions are still in their infancy.  Additionally, there are significant technical challenges to have an application manage *all* ESI (Electronically Stored Information) that exist for a given custodian (including desktop files, instant messaging, text messaging, social media, etc.) As such, most companies must inherently rely upon their custodians to both retain and preserve data pursuant to company policies.  The court not only seems to miss this point, but also attempts to impose an obligation that corporations must prevent the “loss of data” above and beyond specific preservation obligations.

“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.”

Although the exact rationale was unclear, the court held that ASUS violated their duty to preserve and that the loss of evidence could not be excused as a “routine, good faith operation of electronic information systems.” While the court ruled that sanctions were appropriate, it reserved final sanctions pending the close of discovery.   Depending on what those ultimate sanctions look like, it seems pretty likely that this decision will be subject to appellate review.  Until then, it’s probably too soon to treat this questionable holding as gospel.  Wary corporations however should continue to bolster the “reasonableness” of their information management/retention/destruction policies and practices so that in hindsight a court won’t be able to take away the FRCP 37(e) safe harbor by casting those “practices” as being unreasonable.

David Isom and I have collaborated a number of times over the years on a variety of electronic discovery presentations and articles.  So, when I saw that California was proposing new state electronic discovery rules that had some interesting variances vis-à-vis the FRCP, I thought David might be able to give us the benefit of his unique and sage perspective.

1. David, as the author of the definitive piece about inaccessibility under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (The Burden of Discovering Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information: Rules 26(b)(2)(B)& 45(d)(1)(D)), how many litigators do you think really understand and use these provisions?

I sense that litigators with a basic understanding of the new electronic discovery rules know that the inaccessibility rule exists and provides some protection for parties against unduly burdensome discovery.  Few seem to have noticed that Rule 45 contains an inaccessibility provision whose language is similar to the Rule 26(b)(2)(B) inaccessibility protection for parties, but whose protections as applied to subpoenaed nonparties are greater than the protections for parties.  Here are the three most basic and exciting (or excruciating, depending upon your side of the fence) impacts of the new inaccessibility rules:

(1) The inaccessibility rule has completely changed a nonparty’s leverage to narrow subpoenas seeking electronically stored information (ESI).  Subpoenaed nonparties now have protection against fishing expedition subpoenas that did not exist before — to narrow subpoenas, or to require the payment of costs and attorney fees in responding to broad subpoenas.

(2) Cost-shifting, for parties as well as nonparties, is now controlled by the inaccessibility rules.  Several federal courts have recently held that discovery cost-shifting is allowed only if these inaccessibility rules provide for cost-shifting under the circumstances.

(3)  The inaccessibility rules must be asserted and asserted timely if they are to provide protection.  For example, after counsel for nonparty Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight spent $6 million of our money responding to a subpoena in In re Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, 552 F. 3d 814 (D.C. Cir. 2009), counsel tried to recover the money on an inaccessibility cost-shifting argument.  To which the United States District Court and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said, in essence:  you might have had a good idea, and saved your client $6 million, had you raised the arguments before agreeing to produce the documents and spending all that money.  But you agreed to produce the ESI and cannot come back now and get any protection.  You should have studied the inaccessibility rule.

2. So, assuming we’re still early in the learning curve, do you think these FRCP provisions are really gaining traction either in practice or in the case law?

Judging by the number of reported decisions, the inaccessibility rules are receiving as much attention as the other new features of the federal electronic discovery rules.  Which, I suppose, is damnation by faint praise — a large percentage of the reported cases are about what should happen because lawyers didn’t understand or apply the rules properly. Cason-Merenda v. Detroit Medical Center, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51962 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 2008) is a good example.  There, defendant’s counsel produced ESI without any objection and without pre-identifying the ESI as inaccessible.  After production, counsel tried to get their opponents to share the cost of producing the allegedly inaccessible ESI.  The court correctly held that the ESI must be identified as inaccessible in advance of the production to give the seeking party the option to decide whether the discovery is really worth the candle, especially given the prospect that the cost of production might be shifted to the seeking party.

3. What are your thoughts on the new California state provisions regarding “inaccessible” ESI where they’re proposing a different treatment and slightly different burden?  And, will this approach ultimately weaken responding parties abilities to make “inaccessible” claims successfully?

I am not an expert on California law, but am keenly interested in what the states are doing with electronic discovery.  As of this writing (May 2009), it appears that California Assembly Bill No. 5 has not yet been enacted.  Yet, here are some thoughts about how the inaccessibility provisions of this bill, if enacted, would compare to the federal rules of inaccessibility.  The bottom line is that the California bill is remarkably similar to the federal rules on inaccessibility issues.

Under the federal rules, a party seeking protection for inaccessibility initiates the process by “simply” (so far, the courts have tolerated fairly sparse identifications as satisfying this requirement) identifying the sources of information claimed to be not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.  The subpoenaed nonparty seeking protecting can initiate by identifying the ESI sought as not reasonably accessible in an objection, motion to quash or motion for protective order.  In the federal system, either the seeking party or the protecting party or nonparty can move to test the issue (one by a motion to compel, the other by a motion for protective order).

The California bill is nearly identical to the federal process.  The bill provides that a person resisting a subpoena for ESI on inaccessibility grounds may “oppose” the subpoena.  If this means that such a person can either object or move to quash or move for a protective order, it appears to be the same as the federal rule.  The California bill specifies that a party resisting a production request on inaccessibility grounds initiates protection by identifying the types or categories of sources of electronically stored information that it asserts are not reasonably accessible.  This is similar to the federal rule, whose text requires identification of “sources”, but whose committee notes clarify that merely “types or categories of sources” of inaccessible, responsive ESI need be identified.  The California’s Legislative Counsel’s Digest indicates that the process for protecting inaccessible ESI, apparently for both parties and subpoenaed nonparties, can be initiated by moving for a protective order, or by opposing or objecting to the subpoena or request.

Even if there are any distinctions in the above processes, the two processes appear to merge thereafter.  In both systems, the motions to test inaccessibility must be preceded by a conference of counsel to attempt in good faith to resolve the issue, together with a certificate that such an attempt has been made.  In both, the person seeking protection has the burden of proving inaccessibility (this is even true in the federal system where the process is initiated by the seeker’s motion to compel).  In both systems, if the holding party proves inaccessibility, the burden shifts to the seeking party to show good cause for producing the ESI, despite its inaccessibility.

And in both, if good cause is shown, the court may still impose conditions upon production, including cost-shifting.  In both, the factors that the courts are to consider in determining good cause are similar — more accessible, less burdensome sources; cumulativeness of the discovery; whether the burden or expense of the discovery would outweigh the likely benefit of the discovery, considering such things as the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy and the resources of the parties.  One possible difference between the California bill and the federal rules on good cause is that the California bill requires the court to limit discovery if any of the listed factors exists, where the federal rules and committee notes seem to envision a pure balancing.

In sum, the California bill essentially adopts the federal approach.

Some confusion has arisen because California commentators have drawn a distinction between the California bill and a misinterpretation of the federal rules.  One commentator, for example, stated that “under the federal rules, if ESI is inaccessible, the responding party simply doesn’t need to produce such documents.”  This ignores the affirmative identification duty that I discussed above.

4. With the rapid advancements in ESI restoration technologies, which the Comments to the Rule anticipated, are backup tapes in your mind still “inaccessible”?

The rules make it clear that inaccessibility cannot be measured by technology category alone.  The test does not depend upon the type of technology involved, but upon the balancing of need, technology, importance, spoliation, relevance, alternative sources and potential benefit against overbreadth, burden and cost.  So, if backup tapes are the only source available for important, relevant information because more accessible relevant sources have been spoliated, backup tapes will not be deemed inaccessible.  Without spoliation, if relevant ESI is available on active sources, backup tapes may not be discoverable.

Perhaps the main reason that categories of technology cannot be deemed per se accessible or inaccessible is that the technology is changing so fast.  Many search tasks that were expensive and difficult five years ago are much more doable now.

5. Finally, what do you think the future holds for these FRCP sections?

The inaccessibility rules will continue to be the main battleground where the great debates about the value and cost of electronic discovery will be fought, since these rules are specifically tailored to balance all of the interests in that debate.

Some groups are claiming that electronic discovery is wasteful and expensive, and that the new rules exacerbate the problem.  Of course, the federal rules ought always to be analyzed for problems and need for improvement, but I haven’t heard informed, thoughtful, helpful suggestions for improvements to the federal rules in the recent debate.  Overall, I see the adoption of the federal rules as having helped reduce the cost of electronic discovery, not increased the cost.

As Tiger Woods is to golf, the honorable Shira A. Scheindlin is to electronic discovery.  She has unquestionably been the most dominant/visible/outspoken jurist in the electronic discovery realm over the past decade, penning amongst others, the Zubulake opinion, which is commonly referred to as the gold standard in electronic discovery.

But, like Woods, who recently took a sabbatical to mend his surgically repaired knee, Judge Scheindlin has recently been eclipsed by several other notable electronic discovery jurists, namely Judge Grimm (of Victor Stanley and Mancia fame) and Judge Facciola (aka “the Italian Stallion“) both of whom made numerous “best of the year” electronic discovery case law lists.

With Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 2009 WL 94311 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2009) Judge Scheindlin serves notice that the sheriff is back in town.  She not only tackles a number of thorny electronic discovery topics, but ambitiously takes on the US government in the process.  It’s fairly lengthy opinion, well worth the read, so I’ll just excerpt out a few of the notable takeaways.

As a bit of background…  the Collins case centered around a securities fraud complaint brought by the SEC against the Collins & Aikman Corp. and its former CEO David A. Stockman.  The crux of the dispute surrounded questions concerning the government’s discovery obligations in civil discovery (versus in a purely SEC investigation per se).

There were four distinct but interrelated disputes, namely:

“(1) Whether identifying responsive documents that have been organized by the producing party invades the protection accorded to attorney work-product and how a government agency-acting in its investigative capacity-must respond to a request for the production of documents. (2) Whether a government agency may unilaterally restrict the scope of its search based on an assertion of an “undue burden” on limited public resources. (3) How much information the Government must disclose in order to allow an adversary-and the court-to assess an objection based on the deliberative process privilege. (4) Whether a government agency may unilaterally exclude its own e-mail from document production on the ground that most-but not all-will be privileged.”

Addressing the work product claims, the court found against the government, again reinforcing several recent opinions about electronic discovery search:

“The SEC contends that Stockman can search through the ten million pages and find substantially the same documents identified by the SEC without impinging on the thought processes of the SEC attorneys. Indeed-at significant expense and delay-Stockman could search the document databases using appropriate search terms, but the inaccuracy of such searches is by now relatively well known.  A page-by-page manual review of ten million pages of records is strikingly expensive in both monetary and human terms and constitutes “undue hardship” by any definition.” [Citing, George L. Paul and Jason R. Baron's article: Information Inflation: Can the Legal System Adapt?

After losing the first battle, the SEC argued that even if the compilations were not protected as work product, it could produce the "complete, unfiltered, and unorganized investigatory file" since this was how the documents were "maintained in the usual course of its business."  This second attempt was similarly unpersuasive as Judge Scheindlin held that the "usual course of business" exemption did not apply:

"[C]onducting an investigation-which is by its very nature not routine or repetitive-cannot fall within the scope of the “usual course of business.” While the SEC routinely collects and maintains regulatory submissions such 10-K reports, in its investigative capacity the agency conducts tailored probes of a company or an industry, requiring the gathering of records from diverse sources. Many if not most of the 1.7 million documents in the SEC production here were likely collected in the agency’s investigatory role. Thus it is no surprise that the complete collection is maintained as it was collected-in large disorderly databases. The documents can only be provided in a useful manner if the agency organizes or labels them to correspond to each demand.”

Next, Judge Scheindlin addressed the SEC’s decision to “unilaterally” limit its search to “centralized compilations” which ultimately “turned up nothing.”  She found that the SEC’s “blanket refusal to negotiate a workable search protocol” was “patently unreasonable” citing both Mancia and the Sedona Conference’s Cooperation Proclamation:

“Rule 26(f) requires the parties to hold a conference and prepare a discovery plan. … Had this been accomplished, the Court might not now be required to intervene in this particular dispute. I also draw the parties’ attention to the recently issued Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation, which urges parties to work in a cooperative rather than an adversarial manner to resolve discovery issues in order to stem the ‘rising monetary costs’ of discovery disputes.”

As the coup de gras, Judge Scheindlin addressed and rejected out of hand the SEC’s most untenable claim that it would not produce e-mail “generated or received by the Commission itself” because “nearly all responsive e-mails will be privileged, protected, or non-substantive.”

“Because e-mails are inherently searchable, the SEC’s blanket refusal to produce any in-coming or outgoing e-mails is unacceptable. Without even an attempt to negotiate search terms that would weed out privileged, protected, or irrelevant e-mails, the SEC cannot reasonably assert that a routine aspect of modern discovery-search and review of a party’s e-mail-is beyond its capability. Essentially, the SEC’s position is that the cost of such a search is simply too high, but it has made no effort to document the cost or the likelihood that it would produce relevant, nonprivileged material. The concept of sampling to test both the cost and the yield is now part of the mainstream approach to electronic discovery.”

At the end of the day, the Collins opinion seems to make statement the Judge Scheindlin is back with a vengeance and she’s serving notice that the government isn’t above the law:

“Like any ordinary litigant, the Government must abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Besides knocking the government down a peg, Judge Scheindlin throws her judicial weight behind a number of important but nascent trends, including the Sedona Cooperation Proclamation, the related need to meet & confer, the use of sampling and the challenges of electronic discovery search. While none of these notions are groundbreaking, her substantial backing means increasing clarity for lawyers and litigation support practitioners everywhere.  And, that’s certainly welcome.

Picking five out of the sea of electronic discovery cases isn’t as easy as it sounds.  Sure, a few, like our “Case of the Year” will be no-brainers, but others aren’t as clear cut.  And, they’re certainly open to debate.  But, in my humble opinion here’s THE list, counting down David Letterman style:

5) Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 2008 WL 4595175 (D. Md. Oct. 15, 2008)

If there ever was an opinion written by a judge to make a larger societal point, Mancia was certainly it.  Judge Paul Grimm, who’ll appear on this list in another slot as well, has clearly taken the mantle from Judge Scheindlin as the leading electronic discovery jurist.  He’d heretofore authored a number of significant opinions in this area, including Hobson and Thompson. Now, in Mancia he used a garden variety discovery dispute, which was typically rife with boilerplate objections and other obstreperous tactics, to highlight the Sedona Conference’s Cooperation Proclamation.

The lasting takeaway from the opinion is the notion that “[c]ourts repeatedly have noted the need for attorneys to work cooperatively to conduct electronic discovery, and sanctioned lawyers and parties for failing to do so.” To support this notion he cites the Sedona Conference Proclamation and the little used FRCP 26(g).  This opinion is noteworthy because it gives precedent to bolster the Sedona initiative and should provide a ready citation for all those counsel who aren’t getting the level of cooperation they need from the opposition.  It remains to be seen if other judges will follow suit, but this could be the beachhead for a more cooperative electronic discovery process in 2009 and beyond.

4) Flagg v. City of Detroit, 252 F.R.D. 346 (E.D. Mich. 2008)

Flagg highlights the growing need to reconcile the electronic discovery landscape, which typically focuses somewhat myopically on email, with the larger informational trends which are now categorized by the use of blogs, social networking sites, instant messaging, and text messaging.  Flagg was one of the first to determine text messages (e.g., messages exchanged among certain officials and employees of the City of Detroit via city-issued text messaging devices) were discoverable under the standards of FRCP 26(b)(1).  The holding further demonstrated the challenges of conducting electronic discovery across information systems that mix personal information with business communications.  This type of information commingling will continue to escalate, causing significant long term electronic discovery challenges due to thorny privacy, privilege and policy implications.

3) Rhoads Indus., Inc. v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 2008 WL 4916026 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2008)

Rhoads is one of the first cases post Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 502, which recently created a national standard (versus the previous split in jurisdictions) and now states a “middle ground” for the determining of inadvertent disclosure during electronic discovery.  The key provision is (b)(2) which provides protection only if “the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure.”  So, Rhoads took that “reasonableness” question head on in a scenario where the plaintiff Rhoads admittedly (yet inadvertently) produced over eight hundred privileged, electronic documents.  The decision is significant because it used the five-factor test stated in Fidelity, but put an undue weighting on the final test which was: “whether the overriding interests of justice would be served by relieving the party of its errors.”   This approach potentially threatens the development of sound case law that will be necessary to help the deployment of FRE 502 into practice because it casts too much uncertainty with its weighting of “fairness” (a problematically vague notion) in the analysis.  It will be interesting to see if/how this approach is subsequently adopted as we enter the New Year.

2) Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 2008 WL 66932 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2008)

This for many was the case of the year given it’s far reaching implications for the legal community.  Some have argued that this isn’t an e-discovery abuse case per se, but more of an example of discovery abuses that just so happened to be centered around ESI.  In either case, the fraud, resulting cover-up, sanctions, ethical issues and privilege discussions made for insightful and thought provoking reading throughout 2008.  The lasting takeaway from Qualcomm appears to be the implications of not just committing discovery abuses, but the failure of having a well thought out e-discovery plan that is actively executed/monitored by outside counsel.  The resulting tension between outside counsel, inside counsel and the internal IT department may continue to escalate if more cases like this make the headlines in 2009.

1)  E-Discovery Case of the Year: Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2008 WL 2221841 (D. Md. May 29, 2008)

Judge Grimm’s hallmark opinion has had the legal community buzzing over the past several months and the reason appears pretty straight forward.  In Victor Stanley Grimm builds on the holdings in Seroquel, O’Keefe and Equity Analytics, to boldly cast doubt on a practice so routine that it’s literally shocked the legal community into reevaluation:

(”[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) . . . .”

The notion that electronic discovery search is beyond the ability of most attorneys has caused tremors within the litigation support community who had a long history of blindly receiving keywords from counsel, running them and turning back over the results – often blissfully unaware of the extent to which those keyword searches actually located relevant information.  Victor Stanley’s analysis of the “reasonableness” of search protocols also has impact on the FRE 502 and therefore cements its place alongside other e-discovery “must reads” such as Zubulake and Morgan Stanley.

The cases above are my Top 5.  What additional cases do you think were important?  Please let me know by commenting on the cases you think shaped electronic discovery in 2008 and why.

There’s a lot of excitement (and corresponding uncertainty) about the recent passing of Federal Rule of Evidence 502 (FRE 502), which was signed into law on Sept 19th.  The main reason that the legal community is excited about FRE 502 is because of the potential for cost savings by reducing the amount of money associated with the e-discovery review process, which is routinely viewed as the most expensive area in the entire e-discovery process.

In combination with the codification of a national standard to determine when a privilege has been waived, FRE 502 is primarily designed to make the use of claw-back agreements a truly viable prospect when doing e-discovery privilege review.  It should provide some panacea (ideally) for rapidly escalating e-discovery costs.  Or, at least that was the impetus behind the rule’s creation – according to the Comments:

“The proposed new rule facilitates discovery and reduces privilege-review costs by limiting the circumstances under which the privilege or protection is forfeited, which may happen if the privileged or protected information or material is produced in discovery. The burden and cost of steps to preserve the privileged status of attorney-client information and trial preparation materials can be enormous. Under present practices, lawyers and firms must thoroughly review everything in a client’s possession before responding to discovery requests. Otherwise they risk waiving the privileged status not only of the individual item disclosed but of all other items dealing with the same subject matter. This burden is particularly onerous when the discovery consists of massive amounts of electronically stored information.”

In short, FRE 502 is designed to establish uniform, nationwide standards for waiver of attorney-client privilege and work product protection, with the main goal being to protect producing parties against the inadvertent disclosure of privileged materials or work product in either federal or state proceedings.  The salient section is subsection (b) which states that when a disclosure of privileged information is made in a federal proceeding or to a federal agency, the disclosure does not constitute a waiver if:

1. the disclosure is inadvertent;
2. the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and
3. the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error, including (if applicable) following Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B).

The end game here is presumably to increasingly leverage automated review methodologies to save costs.  But, in order to facilitate this type of review methodology without taking on unhealthy levels of risk means that claw-back provisions must be as airtight at possible to prevent inadvertent electronically stored information (ESI) productions.  And yet, exactly how FRE 502 will work in practice is up to debate since there isn’t any case law interpreting it yet.

One area that’s top of mind is how this new Rule will impact the recent decisions on e-discovery search, including the Victor Stanley case authored by Chief Magistrate Judge Grimm.  Since FRE 502 contains a core “reasonableness” prong in section (b) it’s likely that Grimm’s proclamation about e-discovery search will still be controlling.  Grimm fundamentally had to evaluate whether the producing party’s search protocols and procedures were in fact reasonable.

“Defendants, who bear the burden of proving that their conduct was reasonable for purposes of assessing whether they waived attorney-client privilege by producing the 165 documents to the Plaintiff, have failed to provide the court with information regarding: the keywords used; the rationale for their selection; the qualifications of M. Pappas and his attorneys to design an effective and reliable search and information retrieval method; whether the search was a simple keyword search, or a more sophisticated one, such as one employing Boolean proximity operators; or whether they analyzed the results of the search to assess its reliability, appropriateness for the task, and the quality of its implementation.” (footnotes omitted).

In Victor Stanley, the producing party wasn’t able to demonstrate reasonableness because they didn’t strategically craft out their strategy nor conduct any sampling to make sure that the e-discovery search worked as designed.  This type of analysis would still seem to come into play under FRE 502 and so, as Grimm states, the use of either a best practices or collaborative approach to e-discovery would seem to be as important as ever.

Given that backdrop it’s just as important as ever that parties “show their work” when it comes to e-discovery search.   Whether FRE 502 will really make parties feel safe enough to use automated review processes (thereby reducing costs) will remain to be seen.  But, this first step which unifies standards and expectations is at least a very positive step.