24h-payday

Posts Tagged ‘identification’

Breaking News: Adverse Inference Sanction Issued in High Stakes Patent Dispute

Monday, July 30th, 2012

Samsung Electronics and its electronic information retention practices received a strong rebuke this week in Apple v. Samsung Electronics. In this hotly contested patent dispute involving smartphones and tablet computers, the court issued an adverse inference jury instruction to sanction Samsung for the “conscious disregard” of its obligation to retain relevant emails. In so doing, the court emphasized three “golden rules” of eDiscovery that Samsung failed to observe: 1) issue a timely and comprehensive litigation hold; 2) suspend aspects of information retention policies; and 3) manage all stages of the document collection/preservation process.

With respect to the litigation hold, the court faulted Samsung for failing to circulate a comprehensive instruction when it first anticipated litigation. The litigation hold itself was timely, issued a few weeks after Apple apprised Samsung of its infringement claims against particular Samsung products. The instruction, however, was sent to only 27 employees. The court contrasted that initial distribution to subsequent holds, which were circulated to over 2,700 employees after Apple filed suit. Despite the thoroughness of its later legal hold efforts, the court could not excuse Samsung’s earlier mistakes: “Samsung cannot on the one hand tout its prudence and responsibility in regards to its post-complaint preservation efforts, and simultaneously argue that it was ignorant of the possibility of litigation pre-complaint.”

Even more troubling to the court, however, was Samsung’s decision not to suspend or modify its proprietary 14-day email retention policy. Such a policy, which automatically deleted all emails not specifically saved by employees, was instituted for confidentiality and cost reasons (a two-week retention policy is “cheaper than using a 30-day retention period”). Given that this policy would operate to destroy relevant emails, the court repeatedly expressed its astonishment that Samsung took no action to modify it, particularly since the same conduct resulted in similar sanctions several years earlier:

Samsung’s auto-delete email function is no stranger to the federal courts. Over seven years ago, in Mosaid v. Samsung, the District of New Jersey addressed the “rolling basis” by which Samsung email was deleted or otherwise rendered inaccessible. Mosaid also addressed Samsung’s decision not to flip an “off-switch” even after litigation began . . . Mosaid affirmed the imposition of both an adverse inference and monetary sanctions.

The last straw for the court was Samsung’s apparent failure to conduct any type of audit to determine whether its employees were actually saving “relevant emails” as permitted under its retention policy and as required by the litigation hold instruction. Time and again, the court observed that Samsung “did nothing” to confirm that its employees were in compliance.” Such inaction, coupled with its other mistakes, led to the inescapable conclusion that “Samsung ‘consciously disregarded’ its obligation to preserve evidence.”

The Apple case underscores the importance of observing certain golden rules of eDiscovery. First, organizations should issue a timely and comprehensive litigation hold notice.  This means identifying all of the key players and data sources that may have relevant information and immediately distributing an intelligible litigation hold instruction. Next, organizations should suspend aspects of their document retention policies when required to preserve electronically stored information (ESI). By modifying retention policies when so required, an organization can develop a defensible retention procedure and be protected from court sanctions. Finally, organizations should make sure that their legal department actively supervises rank and file employees as they identify, preserve and collect relevant information. Allowing employees to do so without sufficient direction and oversight from legal – so-called self-collections of documents – is generally a recipe for disaster.

By following these golden rules from the Apple decision, organizations can build a defensible eDiscovery process, thereby reducing both litigation risks and costs.

FOIA Matters! — 2012 Information Governance Survey Results for the Government Sector

Thursday, July 12th, 2012

At this year’s EDGE Summit in April, Symantec polled attendees about a range of government-specific information governance questions. The attendees of the event were primarily comprised of members from IT, Legal, as well as Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) agents, government investigators and records managers. The main purpose of the EDGE survey was to gather attendees’ thoughts on what information governance means for their agencies, discern what actions were being taken to address Big Data challenges, and assess how far along agencies were in their information governance implementations pursuant to the recent Presidential Mandate.

As my colleague Matt Nelson’s blog recounts from the LegalTech conference earlier this year, information governance and predictive coding were among the hottest topics at the LTNY 2012 show and in the industry generally. The EDGE Summit correspondingly held sessions on those two topics, as well as delved deeper into questions that are unique to the government. For example, when asked what the top driver for implementation of an information governance plan in an agency was, three out of four respondents answered “FOIA.”

The fact that FOIA was listed as the top driver for government agencies planning to implement an information governance solution is in line with data reported by the Department of Justice (DOJ) from 2008-2011 on the number of requests received. In 2008, 605,491 FOIA requests were received. This figure grew to 644,165 in 2011. While the increase in FOIA requests is not enormous percentage-wise, what is significant is the reduction in backlogs for FOIA requests. In 2008, there was a backlog of 130,419 requests and was decreased to 83,490 by 2011. This is likely due to the implementation of newer and better technology, coupled with the fact that the current administration has made FOIA request processing a priority.

In 2009, President Obama directed agencies to adopt “a presumption in favor’” of FOIA requests for greater transparency in the government. Agencies have had pressure from the President to improve the response time to (and completeness of) FOIA requests. Washington Post reporter Ed O’Keefe wrote,

“a study by the National Security Archive at George Washington University and the Knight Foundation, found approximately 90 federal agencies are equipped to process FOIA requests, and of those 90, only slightly more than half have taken at least some steps to fulfill Obama’s goal to improve government transparency.”

Agencies are increasingly more focused on complying with FOIA and will continue to improve their IT environments with archiving, eDiscovery and other proactive records management solutions in order to increase access to data.

Not far behind FOIA requests on the list of reasons to implement an information governance plan were “lawsuits” and “internal investigations.” Fortunately, any comprehensive information governance plan will axiomatically address FOIA requests since the technology implemented to accomplish information governance inherently allows for the storage, identification, collection, review and production of data regardless of the specific purpose. The use of information governance technology will not have the same workflow or process for FOIA that an internal investigation would require, for example, but the tools required are the same.

The survey also found that the top three most important activities surrounding information governance were: email/records retention (73%), data security/privacy (73%) and data storage (72%). These concerns are being addressed modularly by agencies with technology like data classification services, archiving, and data loss prevention technologies. In-house eDiscovery tools are also important as they facilitate the redaction of personally identifiable information that must be removed in many FOIA requests.

It is clear that agencies recognize the importance of managing email/records for the purposes of FOIA and this is an area of concern in light of not only the data explosion, but because 53% of respondents reported they are responsible for classifying their own data. Respondents have connected the concept of information governance with records management and the ability to execute more effectively on FOIA requests. Manual classification is rapidly becoming obsolete as data volumes grow, and is being replaced by automated solutions in successfully deployed information governance plans.

Perhaps the most interesting piece of data from the survey was the disclosures about what was preventing governmental agencies from implementing information governance plans. The top inhibitors for the government were “budget,” “internal consensus” and “lack of internal skill sets.” Contrasted with the LegalTech Survey findings from 2012 on information governance, with respondents predominantly from the private sector, the government’s concerns and implementation timelines are slightly different. In the EDGE survey, only 16% of the government respondents reported that they have implemented an information governance solution, contrasted with the 19% of the LegalTech audience. This disparity is partly because the government lacks the budget and the proper internal committee of stakeholders to sponsor and deploy a plan, but the relatively lows numbers in both sectors indicate the nascent state of information governance.

In order for a successful information governance plan to be deployed, “it takes a village,” to quote Secretary Clinton. Without prioritizing coordination between IT, legal, records managers, security, and the other necessary departments on data management, merely having the budget only purchases the technology and does not ensure true governance. In this year’s survey, 95% of EDGE respondents were actively discussing information governance solutions. Over the next two years the percentage of agencies that will submit a solution is expected to triple from 16%-52%. With the directive on records management due this month by the National Archives Records Administration (NARA), the government agencies will have clear guidance on what the best practices are for records management, and this will aid the adoption of automated archiving and records classification workflows.

The future is bright with the initiative by the President and NARA’s anticipated directive to examine the state of technology in the government. The EDGE survey results support the forecast, provided budget can be obtained, that agencies will be in an improved state of information governance within the next two years. This will be an improvement for FOIA request compliance, efficient litigation with the government and increase their ability to effectively conduct internal investigations.

Many would have projected that the results of the survey question on what drives information governance in the government would be litigation, internal investigations, and FOIA requests respectively. And yet, FOIA has recently taken on a more important role given the Obama administration’s focus on transparency and the increased number of requests by citizens. While any one of the drivers could have facilitated updates in process and technology the government clearly needs, FOIA has positive momentum behind it and seems to be the impetus primarily driving information governance. Fortunately, archiving and eDiscovery technology, only two parts of information governance continuum, can help with all three of the aforementioned drivers with different workflows.

Later this month we will examine NARA’s directive and what the impact will be on the government’s technology environment – stay tuned.

Gartner’s “2012 Magic Quadrant for E-Discovery Software” Provides a Useful Roadmap for Legal Technologists

Tuesday, May 29th, 2012

Gartner has just released its 2012 Magic Quadrant for E-Discovery Software, which is an annual report that analyzes the state of the electronic discovery industry and provides a detailed vendor-by-vendor evaluation. For many, particularly those in IT circles, Gartner is an unwavering north star used to divine software market leaders, in topics ranging from business intelligence platforms to wireless lan infrastructures. When IT professionals are on the cusp of procuring complex software, they look to analysts like Gartner for quantifiable and objective recommendations – as a way to inform and buttress their own internal decision making processes.

But for some in the legal technology field (particularly attorneys), looking to Gartner for software analysis can seem a bit foreign. Legal practitioners are often more comfortable with the “good ole days” when the only navigation aid in the eDiscovery world was provided by the dynamic duo of George Socha and Tom Gelbmanm, who (beyond creating the EDRM) were pioneers of the first eDiscovery rankings survey. Albeit somewhat short lived, their Annual Electronic Discovery[i] Survey ranked the hundreds of eDiscovery providers and bucketed the top tier players in both software and litigation support categories. The scope of their mission was grand, and they were perhaps ultimately undone by the breadth of their task (stopping the Survey in 2010), particularly as the eDiscovery landscape continued to mature, fragment and evolve.

Gartner, which has perfected the analysis of emerging software markets, appears to have taken on this challenge with an admittedly more narrow (and likely more achievable) focus. Gartner published its first Magic Quadrant (MQ) for the eDiscovery industry last year, and in the 2012 Magic Quadrant for E-Discovery Software report they’ve evaluated the top 21 electronic discovery software vendors. As with all Gartner MQs, their methodology is rigorous; in order to be included, vendors must meet quantitative requirements in market penetration and customer base and are then evaluated upon criteria for completeness of vision and ability to execute.

By eliminating the legion of service providers and law firms, Gartner has made their mission both more achievable and perhaps (to some) less relevant. When talking to certain law firms and litigation support providers, some seem to treat the Gartner initiative (and subsequent Magic Quadrant) like a map from a land they never plan to visit. But, even if they’re not directly procuring eDiscovery software, the Gartner MQ should still be seen by legal technologists as an invaluable tool to navigate the perils of the often confusing and shifting eDiscovery landscape – particularly with the rash of recent M&A activity.

Beyond the quadrant positions[ii], comprehensive analysis and secular market trends, one of the key underpinnings of the Magic Quadrant is that the ultimate position of a given provider is in many ways an aggregate measurement of overall customer satisfaction. Similar in ways to the net promoter concept (which is a tool to gauge the loyalty of a firm’s customer relationships simply by asking how likely that customer is to recommend a product/service to a colleague), the Gartner MQ can be looked at as the sum total of all customer experiences.[iii] As such, this usage/satisfaction feedback is relevant even for parties that aren’t purchasing or deploying electronic discovery software per se. Outside counsel, partners, litigation support vendors and other interested parties may all end up interacting with a deployed eDiscovery solution (particularly when such solutions have expanded their reach as end-to-end information governance platforms) and they should want their chosen solution to used happily and seamlessly in a given enterprise. There’s no shortage of stories about unhappy outside counsel (for example) that complain about being hamstrung by a slow, first generation eDiscovery solution that ultimately makes their job harder (and riskier).

Next, the Gartner MQ also is a good short-handed way to understand more nuanced topics like time to value and total cost of ownership. While of course related to overall satisfaction, the Magic Quadrant does indirectly address the query about whether the software does what it says it will (delivering on the promise) in the time frame that is claimed (delivering the promise in a reasonable time frame) since these elements are typically subsumed in the satisfaction metric. This kind of detail is disclosed in the numerous interviews that Gartner conducts to go behind the scenes, querying usage and overall satisfaction.

While no navigation aid ensures that a traveler won’t get lost, the Gartner Magic Quadrant for E-Discovery Software is a useful map of the electronic discovery software world. And, particularly looking at year-over-year trends, the MQ provides a useful way for legal practitioners (beyond the typical IT users) to get a sense of the electronic discovery market landscape as it evolves and matures. After all, staying on top of the eDiscovery industry has a range of benefits beyond just software procurement.

Please register here to access the Gartner Magic Quadrant for E-Discovery Software.

About the Magic Quadrant
Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in its research publications, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings. Gartner research publications consist of the opinions of Gartner’s research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.



[i] Note, in the good ole days folks still used two words to describe eDiscovery.

[ii] Gartner has a proprietary matrix that it uses to place the entities into four quadrants: Leaders, Challengers, Visionaries and Niche Players.

[iii] Under the Ability to Execute axis Gartner weighs a number of factors including “Customer Experience: Relationships, products and services or programs that enable clients to succeed with the products evaluated. Specifically, this criterion includes implementation experience, and the ways customers receive technical support or account support. It can also include ancillary tools, the existence and quality of customer support programs, availability of user groups, service-level agreements and so on.”

Morton’s Fork, Oil Filters the Nexus with Information Governance

Thursday, May 10th, 2012

Those old enough to have watched TV in the early eighties will undoubtedly remember the FRAM oil slogan where the mechanic utters his iconic catchphrase: “You can pay me now, or pay me later.”  The gist of the vintage ad was that the customer could either pay a small sum now for the replacement of oil filter, or a far greater sum later for the replacement of the car’s entire engine.

This choice between two unpleasant alternatives is sometimes called a Morton’s Fork (but typically only when both choices are equal in difficulty).  The saying (not to be confused with the equally colorful Hobson’s Choice) apparently originated with the collection of taxes by John Morton (the Archbishop of Canterbury) in the late 15th century.  Morton was apparently fond of saying that a man living modestly must be saving money and could therefore afford to pay taxes, whereas if he was living extravagantly then he was obviously rich and could still afford them.[i]

This “pay me now/pay me later” scenario perplexes many of today’s organizations as they try to effectively govern (i.e., understand, discover and retain) electronically stored information (ESI).  The challenge is similar to the oil filter conundrum, in that companies can often make rather modest up-front retention/deletion decisions that help prevent monumental, downstream eDiscovery charges.

This exponential gap has been illustrated recently by a number of surveys contrasting the cost of storage with the cost of conducting basic eDiscovery tasks (such as preservation, collection, processing, review and production).  In a recent AIIM webcast it was noted that “it costs about 20¢/day to buy 1GB of storage, but it costs around $3,500 to review that same gigabyte of storage.” And, it turns out that the $3,500 review estimate (which sounds prohibitively expensive, particularly at scale) may actually be on the conservative side.  While the review phase is roughly 70 percent of the total eDiscovery costs – there is the other 30% that includes upstream costs for preservation, collection and processing.

Similarly, in a recent Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG) paper the authors noted that eDiscovery costs range anywhere from $5,000 to $30,000 per gigabyte, citing the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology.  This $30,000 figure is also roughly in line with other per-gigabyte eDiscovery costs, according to a recent survey by the RAND Corporation.  In an article entitled “Where the Money Goes — Understanding Litigant Expenditures for Producing Electronic Discovery” authors Nicholas M. Pace and Laura Zakaras conducted an extensive analysis and concluded that “… the total costs per gigabyte reviewed were generally around $18,000, with the first and third quartiles in the 35 cases with complete information at $12,000 and $30,000, respectively.”

Given these range of estimates, the $18,000 per gigabyte metric is probably a good midpoint figure that advocates of information governance can use to contrast with the exponentially lower baseline costs of buying and maintaining storage.  It is this stark (and startling) gap between pure information costs and the expenses of eDiscovery that shows how important it is to calculate latent “information risk.”  If you also add in the risks for sanctions due to spoliation, the true (albeit still murky) information risk portrait comes into focus.  It is this calculation that is missing when legal goes to bat to argue about the necessity of information governance solutions, particularly when faced with the host of typical objections (“storage is cheap” … “keep everything” … “there’s no ROI for proactive information governance programs”).

The good news is that as the eDiscovery market continues to evolve, practitioners (legal and IT alike) will come to a better and more holistic understanding of the latent information risk costs that the unchecked proliferation of data causes.  It will be this increased level of transparency that permits the budding information governance trend to become a dominant umbrella concept that unites Legal and IT.



[i] Insert your own current political joke here…

Look Before You Leap! Avoiding Pitfalls When Moving eDiscovery to the Cloud

Monday, May 7th, 2012

It’s no surprise that the eDiscovery frenzy gripping the American legal system over the past decade has become increasingly expensive.  Particularly costly to organizations is the process of preserving and collecting documents, a fact repeatedly emphasized by the Advisory Committee in its report regarding the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).  These aspects of discovery are often lengthy and can be disruptive to business operations.  Just as troubling, they increase the duration and expense of litigation.

Because these costs and delays affect the courts as well as clients, it comes as no surprise that judges have now heightened their expectation for how organizations store, manage and discover their electronically stored information (ESI).  Gone are the days when enterprises could plead ignorance for not preserving or producing their data in an efficient, cost effective and defensible manner.  Organizations must now follow best practices – both during and before litigation – if they are to safely navigate the stormy seas of eDiscovery.

The importance of deploying such practices applies acutely to those organizations that are exploring “cloud”-based alternatives to traditional methods for preserving and producing electronic information.  Under the right circumstances, the cloud may represent a fantastic opportunity to streamline the eDiscovery process for an organization.  Yet it could also turn into a dangerous liaison if the cloud offering is not properly scrutinized for basic eDiscovery functionality.  Indeed, the City of Los Angeles’s recent decision to partially disengage from its cloud service provider exemplifies this admonition to “look before you leap” to the cloud.  Thus, before selecting a cloud provider for eDiscovery, organizations should be particularly careful to ensure that a provider has the ability both to efficiently retrieve data from the cloud and to issue litigation hold notices.

Effective Data Retrieval Requires Efficient Data Storage

The hype surrounding the cloud has generally focused on the opportunity for cheap and unlimited storage of information.  Storage, however, is only one of many factors to consider in selecting a cloud-based eDiscovery solution.  To be able to meet the heightened expectations of courts and regulatory bodies, organizations must have the actual – not theoretical – ability to retrieve their data in real time.  Otherwise, they may not be able to satisfy eDiscovery requests from courts or regulatory bodies, let alone the day-to-day demands of their operations.

A key step to retrieving company data in a timely manner is to first confirm whether the cloud offering can intelligently organize that information such that organizations can quickly respond to discovery requests and other legal demands.  This includes the capacity to implement and observe company retention protocols.  Just like traditional data archiving software, the cloud must enable automated retention rules and thus limit the retention of information to a designated time period.  This will enable data to be expired once it reaches the end of that period.

The pool of data can be further decreased through single instance storage.  This deduplication technology eliminates redundant data by preserving only a master copy of each document placed into the cloud.  This will reduce the amount of data that needs to be identified, preserved, collected and reviewed as part of any discovery process.  For while unlimited data storage may seem ideal now, reviewing unlimited amounts of data will quickly become a logistical and costly nightmare.

Any viable cloud offering should also have the ability to suspend automated document retention/deletion rules to ensure the adequate preservation of relevant information.  This goes beyond placing a hold on archival data in the cloud.  It requires that an organization have the ability to identify the data sources in the cloud that may contain relevant information and then modify aspects of its retention policies to ensure that cloud-stored data is retained for eDiscovery.  Taking this step will enable an organization to create a defensible document retention strategy and be protected from court sanctions under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) “safe harbor.”  The decision from Viramontes v. U.S. Bancorp (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2011) is particularly instructive on this issue.

In Viramontes, the defendant bank defeated a sanctions motion because it timely modified aspects of its email retention policy.  The bank implemented a policy that kept emails for 90 days, after which the emails were deleted.  That policy was promptly suspended, however, once litigation was reasonably foreseeable.  Because the bank followed that procedure in good faith, it was protected from sanctions under Rule 37(e).

As the Viramontes case shows, an organization can be prepared for eDiscovery disputes by appropriately suspending aspects of its document retention policies.  By creating and then faithfully observing a policy that requires retention policies be suspended on the occurrence of litigation or other triggering event, an organization can develop a defensible retention procedure. Having such eDiscovery functionality in a cloud provider will likely facilitate an organization’s eDiscovery process and better insulate it from litigation disasters.

The Ability to Issue Litigation Hold Notices

To be effective for eDiscovery purposes, a cloud service provider must also enable an organization to deploy a litigation hold to prevent users from destroying data. Unless the cloud has litigation hold technology, the entire discovery process may very well collapse.  For electronic data to be produced in litigation, it must first be preserved.  And it cannot be preserved if the key players or data source custodians are unaware that such information must be retained.  Indeed, employees and data sources may discard and overwrite electronically stored information if they are oblivious to a preservation duty.

A cloud service provider should therefore enable automated legal hold acknowledgements.  Such technology will allow custodians to be promptly and properly notified of litigation and thereby retain information that might otherwise have been discarded.  Inadequate litigation hold technology leaves organizations vulnerable to data loss and court punishment.

Conclusion

Confirming that a cloud offering can quickly retrieve and efficiently store enterprise data while effectively deploying litigation hold notices will likely address the basic concerns regarding its eDiscovery functionality. Yet these features alone will not make that solution the model of eDiscovery cloud providers. Advanced search capabilities should also be included to reduce the amount of data that must be analyzed and reviewed downstream. In addition, the cloud ought to support load files in compatible formats for export to third party review software. The cloud should additionally provide an organization with a clear audit trail establishing that neither its documents, nor their metadata were modified when transmitted to the cloud.  Without this assurance, an organization may not be able to comply with key regulations or establish the authenticity of its data in court. Finally, ensure that these provisions are memorialized in the service level agreement governing the relationship between the organization and the cloud provider.

The 2012 EDGE Summit (21st Century Technology for Information Governance) Debuts In Nation’s Capitol

Monday, April 23rd, 2012

The EDGE Summit this week is one of the most prestigious eDiscovery events of the year as well as arguably the largest for the government sector. This year’s topics and speakers are top notch. The opening keynote speaker will be the Director of Litigation for the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Mr. Jason Baron. The EDGE Summit will be the first appearance for Mr. Baron since the submission deadline for the 480 agencies to submit their reports to his Agency in order to construct the Directive required by the Presidential Mandate. Attendees will be eager to hear what steps NARA is taking to implement a Directive to the government later this year, and the potential impact it will have on how the government approaches its eDiscovery obligations. The Directive will be a significant step in attempting to bring order to the government’s Big Data challenges and to unify agencies with a similar approach to an information governance plan.

Also speaking at EDGE is the renowned Judge Facciola who will be discussing the anticipated updates the American Bar Association (ABA) is expected to make to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. He plans to speak on the challenges that lawyers are facing in the digital age, and what that means with regard to competency as a practicing lawyer. He will focus as well on the government lawyer and how they can better meet their legal obligations through education, training, or knowing when and how to find the right expert. Whether it is the investigating party for law enforcement, producing party under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), or defendant in civil litigation, Judge Facciola will also discuss what he sees in his courtroom every day and where the true knowledge gaps are in the technological understanding of many lawyers today.

While the EDGE Summit offers CLE credit, it also has a very unique practical aspect as well. There will be a FOIA-specific lab, a lab on investigations, one on civil litigation and early case assessment (ECA) and also one on streamlining the eDiscovery workflow process. Those that plan on attending the labs will get the hands-on experience with technology that few educational events offer. It is rare to get in the driver’s seat of the car on the showroom floor and actually drive, which is what EDGE is providing for end users and interested attendees. When talking about the complex problems government agencies face today with Big Data, records management, information governance, eDiscovery, compliance, security, etc. it is necessary to give users a way to  truly visualize how these technologies work.

Another key draw at the Summit will be the panel discussions which will feature experienced government lawyers who have been on the front lines of litigation and have very unique perspectives. The legal hold panel will cover some exciting aspects of the evolution of manual versus automated processes for legal hold. Mr. David Shonka, the Deputy General Counsel of the Federal Trade Commission, is on the panel and he will discuss the defensibility of the process the FTC used and the experience his department had with two 30 (b) (6) witnesses in the Federal Trade Commission v. Lights of America, Inc (CD California, Mar 2011). The session will also cover how issuing a legal hold is imperative once the duty to preserve has been triggered. There are a whole new generation of lawyers that are managing the litigation hold process in an automated way, and it will be great to discuss both the manual and automated approaches and talk about best practices for government agencies. There will also be a session on predictive coding and discussion about the recent cases that have involve the use of technology assisted review. While we are not at the point of mainstream adoption for predictive coding, it is quite exciting to think about the government going from a paper world straight into solutions that would help them manage their unique challenges as well as save them time and money.

Finally, the EDGE Summit will conclude with closing remarks from The Hon. Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from 2005 to 2009. Mr. Chertoff presently consults with high-level strategic counsel to corporate and government leaders on a broad range of security issues, from risk identification and prevention to preparedness, response and recovery. All of these issues now involve data and how to search, collect, analyze, protect and store it. Security is one of the most important aspects of information governance. The government has unique challenges including size and many geographical locations, records management requirements, massive data volume and case load, investigations, heightened security and defense intelligence risks. This year, in particular, will be a defining year; not only because of the Presidential Mandate, but because of the information explosion and the stretch of global economy. This is why the sector needs to come together to share best practices and hear success stories.  Otherwise, they won’t be able to keep up with the data explosion that’s threatening private and public sectors alike.

Breaking News: Court Clarifies Duty to Preserve Evidence, Denies eDiscovery Sanctions Motion Against Pfizer

Wednesday, April 18th, 2012

It is fortunately becoming clearer that organizations do not need to preserve information until litigation is “reasonably anticipated.” In Brigham Young University v. Pfizer (D. Utah Apr. 16, 2012), the court denied the plaintiff university’s fourth motion for discovery sanctions against Pfizer, likely ending its chance to obtain a “game-ending” eDiscovery sanction. The case, which involves disputed claims over the discovery and development of prominent anti-inflammatory drugs, is set for trial on May 29, 2012.

In Brigham Young, the university pressed its case for sanctions against Pfizer based on a vastly expanded concept of a litigant’s preservation duty. Relying principally on the controversial Phillip M. Adams & Associates v. Dell case, the university argued that Pfizer’s “duty to preserve runs to the legal system generally.” The university reasoned that just as the defendant in the Adams case was “sensitized” by earlier industry lawsuits to the real possibility of plaintiff’s lawsuit, Pfizer was likewise put on notice of the university’s claims due to related industry litigation.

The court rejected such a sweeping characterization of the duty to preserve, opining that it was “simply too broad.” Echoing the concerns articulated by the Advisory Committee when it framed the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), the court took pains to emphasize the unreasonable burdens that parties such as Pfizer would face if such a duty were imposed:

“It is difficult for the Court to imagine how a party could ever dispose of information under such a broad duty because of the potential for some distantly related litigation that may arise years into the future.”

The court also rejected the university’s argument because such a position failed to appreciate the basic workings of corporate records retention policies. As the court reasoned, “[e]vidence may simply be discarded as a result of good faith business procedures.” When those procedures operate to inadvertently destroy evidence before the duty to preserve is triggered, the court held that sanctions should not issue: “The Federal Rules protect from sanctions those who lack control over the requested materials or who have discarded them as a result of good faith business procedures.”

The Brigham Young case is significant for a number of reasons. First, it reiterates that organizations need not keep electronically stored information (ESI) for legal or regulatory purposes until the duty to preserve is reasonably anticipated. As American courts have almost uniformly held since the 1997 case of Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., organizations are not required to keep every piece of paper, every email, every electronic document and every back up tape.

Second, Brigham Young emphasizes that organizations can and should use document retention protocols to rid themselves of data stockpiles. Absent a preservation duty or other exceptional circumstances, paring back ESI pursuant to “good faith business procedures” (such as a neutral retention policy) will be protected under the law.

Finally, Brigham Young narrows the holding of the Adams case to its particular facts. The Adams case has been particularly troublesome to organizations as it arguably expanded their preservation duty in certain circumstances. However, Brigham Young clarified that this expansion was unwarranted in the instant case, particularly given that Pfizer documents were destroyed pursuant to “good faith business procedures.”

In summary, Brigham Young teaches that organizations will be protected from eDiscovery sanctions to the extent they destroy ESI in good faith pursuant to a reasonable records retention policy. This will likely bring a sigh of relief to enterprises struggling with the information explosion since it encourages confident deletion of data when the coast is clear of a discrete litigation event.

The eDiscovery “Passport”: The First Step to Succeeding in International Legal Disputes

Monday, April 2nd, 2012

The increase in globalization continues to erase borders throughout the world economy. Organizations now routinely conduct business in countries that were previously unknown to their industry vertical.  The trend of global integration is certain to increase, with reports such as the Ernst & Young 2011 Global Economic Survey confirming that 74% of companies believe that globalization, particularly in emerging markets, is essential to their continued vitality.

Not surprisingly, this trend of global integration has also led to a corresponding increase in cross-border litigation. For example, parties to U.S. litigation are increasingly seeking discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) from other litigants and third parties located in Continental Europe and the United Kingdom. Since traditional methods under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) may be unacceptable for discovering ESI in those forums, the question then becomes how such information can be obtained.

At this point, many clients and their counsel are unaware how to safely navigate these international waters. The short answer for how to address these issues for much of Europe would be to resort to the Hague Convention of March 18, 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Convention). Simply referring to the Hague Convention, however, would ignore the complexities of electronic discovery in Europe. Worse, it would sidestep the glaring knowledge gap that exists in the United States regarding the cultural differences distinguishing European litigation from American proceedings.

The ability to bridge this gap with an awareness of the discovery processes in Europe is essential. Understanding that process is similar to holding a valid passport for international travel. Just as a passport is required for travelers to successfully cross into foreign lands, an “eDiscovery Passport™” is likewise necessary for organizations to effectively conduct cross-border discovery.

The Playing Field for eDiscovery in Continental Europe

Litigation in Continental Europe and is culturally distinct from American court proceedings. “Discovery,” as it is known in the United States, does not exist in Europe. Interrogatories, categorical document requests and requests for admissions are simply unavailable as European discovery devices. Instead, European countries generally allow only a limited exchange of documents, with parties typically disclosing only that information that supports their claims.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently commented on this key distinction between European and American discovery when it observed that “the German legal system . . . does not authorize discovery in the sense of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” The court went on to explain that “[a] party to a German lawsuit cannot demand categories of documents from his opponent. All he can demand are documents that he is able to identify specifically—individually, not by category.” Heraeus Kulzer GmbH v. Biomet, Inc., 633 F.3d 591, 596 (7th Cir. 2011).

Another key distinction to discovery in Continental Europe is the lack of rules or case law requiring the preservation of ESI or paper documents. This stands in sharp contrast to American jurisprudence, which typically requires organizations to preserve information as soon as they reasonably anticipate litigation. See, e.g., Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed.Cir. 2011). In Europe, while an implied preservation duty could arise if a court ordered the disclosure of certain materials, the penalties for European non-compliance are typically not as severe as those issued by American courts.

Only the nations of the United Kingdom, from which American notions of litigation are derived, have discovery obligations that are more similar to those in the United States. For example, in the combined legal system of England and Wales, a party must disclose to the other side information adverse to its claims. Moreover, England and Wales also suggest that parties should take affirmative steps to prepare for disclosure. According to the High Court in Earles v Barclays Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 2500 (Mercantile) (08 October 2009), this includes having “an efficient and effective information management system in place to provide identification, preservation, collection, processing, review analysis and production of its ESI in the disclosure process in litigation and regulation.” For organizations looking to better address these issues, a strategic and intelligent information governance plan offers perhaps the best chance to do so.

Hostility to International Discovery Requests

Despite some similarities between the U.S. and the U.K., Europe as a whole retains a certain amount of cultural hostility to pre-trial discovery. Given this fact, it should come as no surprise that international eDiscovery requests made pursuant to the Hague Convention are frequently denied. Requests are often rejected because they are overly broad.  In addition, some countries such as Italy simply refuse to honor requests for pre-trial discovery from common law countries like the United States. Moreover, other countries like Austria are not signatories to the Hague Convention and will not accept requests made pursuant to that treaty. To obtain ESI from those countries, litigants must take their chances with the cumbersome and time-consuming process of submitting letters rogatory through the U.S. State Department. Finally, requests for information that seek email or other “personal information” (i.e., information that could be used to identify a person) must additionally satisfy a patchwork of strict European data protection rules.

Obtaining an eDiscovery Passport

This backdrop of complexity underscores the need for both lawyers and laymen to understand the basic principles governing eDisclosure in Europe. Such a task should not be seen as daunting. There are resources that provide straightforward answers to these issues at no cost to the end-user. For example, Symantec has just released a series of eDiscovery Passports™ that touch on the basic issues underlying disclosure and data privacy in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Italy and Spain. Organizations such as The Sedona Conference have also made available materials that provide significant detail on these issues, including its recently released International Principles on Discovery, Disclosure and Data Protection.

These resources can provide valuable information to clients and counsel alike and better prepare litigants for the challenges of pursuing legal rights across international boundaries. By so doing, organizations can moderate the effects of legal risk and more confidently pursue their globalization objectives.

eDiscovery Down Under: New Zealand and Australia Are Not as Different as They Sound, Mate!

Thursday, March 29th, 2012

Shortly after arriving in Wellington, New Zealand, I picked up the Dominion Post newspaper and read its lead article: a story involving U.S. jurisdiction being exercised over billionaire NZ resident Mr. Kim Dotcom. The article reinforced the challenges we face with blurred legal and data governance issues presented by the globalization of the economy and the expansive reach of the internet. Originally from Germany, and having changed his surname to reflect the origin of his fortune, Mr. Dotcom has become all too familiar in NZ of late. He has just purchased two opulent homes in NZ, and has become an internationally controversial figure for internet piracy. Mr. Dotcom’s legal troubles arise out of his internet business that enables illegal downloads of pirated material between users, which allegedly is powering the largest copyright infringement in global history. It is approximated that his website constitutes 4% of the internet traffic in the world, which means there could be tons of discovery in this case (or, cases).

The most recent legal problems Mr. Dotcom faces are with U.S. authorities who want to extradite him to face copyright charges worth $500 million by his Megaupload file-sharing website. From a criminal and record-keeping standpoint, Mr. Dotcom’s issues highlight the need for and use of appropriate technologies. In order to establish a case against him, it’s likely that search technologies were deployed by U.S. intelligence agencies to piece together Mr. Dotcom’s activities, banking information, emails and the data transfers on his site. In a case like this, where intelligence agencies would need to collect, search and cull email from so many different geographies and data sources down to just the relevant information, using technologies that link email conversation threads and give insight into a data collection set from a transparent search point of view would provide immense value. Additionally, the Immigration bureau in New Zealand has been required to release hundreds of documents about Mr. Dotcom’s residency application that were requested under the Official Information Act (OIA). The records that Immigration had to produce were likely pulled from their archive or records management system in NZ, and then redacted for private information before production to the public.

The same tools are needed in Australia and New Zealand to build a criminal case or to comply with the OIA that we use here in the U.S for investigatory and compliance purposes, as well as for litigation. The trend in information governance technology in APAC is trending first toward government agencies who are purchasing archiving and eDiscovery technologies more rapidly than private companies. Why is this? One reason could be that because the governments in APAC have a larger responsibility for healthcare, education and the protection of privacy; they are more invested in the compliance requirements and staying off the front page of the news for shortcomings. APAC private enterprises that are small or mid-sized and are not yet doing international business do not have the same archiving and eDiscovery needs large government agencies do, nor do they face litigation in the same way their American counterparts do. Large global companies should assume no matter where they are based, that they may be availed to litigation where they are doing business.

An interesting NZ use case on the enterprise level is that of Transpower (the quasi-governmental energy agency), where compliance with both the “private and public” requirements are mandatory. Transpower is an organisation that is government-owned, yet operates for a profit. Sally Myles, an experienced records manager that recently came to Transpower to head up information governance initiatives, says,

“We have to comply with the Public Records Act of 2005, public requests for information are frequent as we and are under constant scrutiny about where we will develop our plants. We also must comply with the Privacy Act of 1993. My challenge is to get the attention of our leadership to demonstrate why we need to make these changes and show them a plan for implementation as well as cost savings.”

Myles’ comments indicate NZ is facing many of the same information challenges we are here in the US with storage, records management and searching for meaningful information within the organisation.

Australia, New Zealand and U.S. Commonalities

In Australia and NZ, litigation is not seen as a compelling business driver the same way it is in the U.S. This is because many of the information governance needs of organisations are driven by regulatory, statutory and compliance requirements and the environment is not as litigious as it is in the U.S. The Official Information Act in NZ, and the Freedom of Information in Australia, are analogous to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) here in the U.S. The requirements to produce public records alone justify the use of technology to provide the ability to manage large volumes of data and produce appropriately redacted information to the public. This is true regardless of litigation. Additionally, there are now cases like DuPont or Mr. Dotcom’s, that legitimatize the risk of litigation with the U.S. The fact that implementing an information governance product suite will also enable a company to be prepared for litigation is a beneficial by-product for many entities as they need technology for record keeping and privacy reasons anyway. In essence, the same capabilities are achieved at the end of the day, regardless of the impetus for implementing a solution.

The Royal Commission – The Ultimate eDiscovery Vehicle

One way to think about the Australian Royal Commission (RCs) is to see it as a version of the U.S.’ government investigation. A key difference, however, is that in the case of the U.S. government, an investigation is typically into private companies. Conversely, a Royal Commission is typically an investigation into a government body after a major tragedy and it is initiated by the Head of State. A RC is an ad-hoc, formal, public inquiry into a defined issue with considerable discovery powers. These powers can be greater than those of a judge and are restricted to the scope and terms of reference of the Commission. RCs are called to look into matters of great importance and usually have very large budgets. The RC is charged with researching the issue, consulting experts both within and outside of government and developing findings to recommend changes to the law or other courses of actions. RCs have immense investigatory powers, including summoning witnesses under oath, offering of indemnities, seizing of documents and other evidence (sometimes including those normally protected, such as classified information), holding hearings in camera if necessary and—in a few cases—compelling government officials to aid in the execution of the Commission.

These expansive powers give the RC the opportunity to employ state of the art technology and to skip the slow bureaucratic decision making processes found within the government when it comes to implementing technological change. For this reason, initially, eDiscovery will continue to increase in the government sector at a more rapid pace than in the private in the Asia Pacific region. This is because litigation is less prevalent in the Asia Pacific, and because the RC is a unique investigatory vehicle with the most far-reaching authority for discovering information. Moreover, the timeframes for RCs are tight and their scopes are broad, making them hair on fire situations that move quickly.

While the APAC information management environment does not have the exact same drivers the U.S. market does, it definitely has the same archiving, eDiscovery and technology needs for different reasons. Another key point is that the APAC archiving and eDiscovery market will likely be driven by the government as records, search and production requirements are the main compliance needs in Australia and NZ. APAC organisations would be well served by beginning to modularly implement key elements of an information governance plan, as globalization is driving us all to a more common and automated approach to data management. 

Policy vs. Privacy: Striking the Right Balance Between Organization Interests and Employee Privacy

Friday, March 9th, 2012

The lines between professional and personal lives are being further blurred every day. With the proliferation of smart phones, the growth of the virtual workplace and the demands of business extending into all hours of the day, employees now routinely mix business with pleasure by commingling such matters on their work and personal devices. This trend is sure to increase, particularly with “bring your own device” policies now finding their way into companies.

This sometimes awkward marriage of personal and professional issues raises the critical question of how organizations can respect the privacy rights of their employees while also protecting their trade secrets and other confidential/proprietary information. The ability to properly navigate these murky waters under the broader umbrella of information governance may be the difference between a successful business and a litigation-riddled enterprise.

Take, for instance, a recent lawsuit that claimed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) unlawfully spied on the personal email accounts of nine of its employee scientists and doctors. In that litigation, the FDA is alleged to have monitored email messages those employees sent to Congress and the Office of Inspector of General for the Department of Health & Human Services. In the emails at issue, the scientists and doctors scrutinized the effectiveness of certain medical devices the FDA was about to approve for use on patients.

While the FDA’s email policy clearly delineates that employee communications made from government devices may be monitored or recorded, the FDA may have intercepted employees’ user IDs and passwords and accessed messages they sent from their home computers and personal smart phones. Not only would such conduct potentially violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), it might also conceivably run afoul of the Whistleblower Protection Act.

The FDA spying allegations have also resulted in a congressional inquiry into the email monitoring policies of all federal agencies throughout the executive branch. Congress is now requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) produce the following information about agency email monitoring policies:

  • Whether a policy distinguishes between work and personal email
  • Whether user IDs and passwords can be obtained for personal email accounts and, if so, whether safeguards are deployed to prevent misappropriation
  • Whether a policy defines what constitutes protected whistleblower communications

The congressional inquiry surrounding agency email practices provides a valuable measuring stick for how private sector organizations are addressing related issues. For example, does an organization have an acceptable use policy that addresses employee privacy rights? Having such a policy in place is particularly critical given that employees use company-issued smart phones to send out work emails, take photographs and post content to personal social networking pages. If such a policy exists now, query whether it is enforced, what the mechanisms exist for doing so and whether or not such enforcement is transparent to the employees.  Compliance is just as important as issuing the policy in the first place.

Another critical inquiry is whether an organization has an audit/oversight process to prevent the type of abuses that allegedly occurred at the FDA. Such a process is essential for organizations on multiple levels. First, as Congress made clear in its letter to the OMB, monitoring communications that employees make from their personal devices violates the ECPA. It could also interfere with internal company whistleblower processes. And to the extent adverse employment action is taken against an employee-turned-whistleblower, the organization could be liable for violations of the False Claims Act or the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

A related aspect to these issues concerns whether an organization can obtain work communications sent from employee personal devices. For example, financial services companies must typically retain communications with investors for at least three years. Has the organization addressed this document retention issue while respecting employee privacy rights in their own smart phones and tablet computers?

If an organization does not have such policies or protections in place, it should not panic and rush off to get policies drafted without thinking ahead. Instead, it should address these issues through an intelligent information governance plan. Such a plan will typically address issues surrounding information security, employee privacy, data retention and eDiscovery within the larger context of industry regulations, business demands and employee productivity. That plan will also include budget allocations to support the acquisition and deployment of technology tools to support written policies on these and other issues.  Addressed in this context, organizations will more likely strike the right balance between their interests and their employees’ privacy and thereby avoid a host of unpleasant outcomes.