e-discovery 2.0

After more than ten years of IT experience and over a year of experience as an attorney working exclusively with e-discovery, I am delighted to join the E-Discovery 2.0 team.  I am a member of the South Carolina Bar Association and the American Bar Association.  In this and future posts, I will try to bring a practical perspective or view from the trenches to this blog – a look at how to deal with some of the day-to-day problems facing e-discovery practitioners today.  I will begin with a discussion about how to approach the decision to move e-discovery in-house, and although the desire to build a solution “in a day” is tempting (and sometimes precipitated by necessity), a solution that will stand the test of time and provide the greatest ROI requires a bit more planning and care.

E-Discovery can sometimes be thought of as an ailment that requires a quick remedy in the form of software or services.  We continue to be reminded, however, that e-discovery is much more than a fleeting malady; it is an ongoing business problem that must be treated with the same diligence and meticulous execution as regulatory compliance or data security.

So where should the prudent practitioner begin?

Every good IT project manager I have ever worked with always had the same mantra when it came to solving a problem with technology – make sure the business problem has been well defined and establish detailed requirements before venturing into the marketplace.  So, why are so many companies sending out form RFPs containing canned text expecting to find a miracle “end-to-end” e-discovery solution in a relatively short period of time?  The answer, I believe, lies both in the abundance and availability of generic information about e-discovery and the fact that most companies looking to bring e-discovery in-house are already feeling the pain of rising costs and demands on existing staff.  They are, in short, trying to conquer their e-discovery problem in a day.  To truly conquer the problem, it should be attacked from the areas causing the greatest pain and expense first, and those areas should be thoroughly examined using proven project management techniques.

If e-discovery is indeed a significant business process, then companies must address that problem using the same proven methods that they have been using for years to solve other business problems.  For example, every company today, believe it or not, has an e-discovery solution in place.  If the company was sued tomorrow, and there was a significant e-discovery component to the matter, the company would likely react in a certain way based on a number of factors – hire outside consultants, work with a litigation support provider, rely on their outside counsel to coordinate e-discovery, etc.  So why not predict that reaction, analyze it, and determine where the greatest expense and pain lies in that process?  From that data, the company can decide which portions of the e-discovery workflow, if any, should be brought in-house, and it can seek out best-of-breed solutions rather than settling on the first end-to-end vendor that comes knocking.  The next step is to rely on those time-honored project management edicts – define the business problem and establish concrete requirements.  Then the company will be armed with the most powerful weapon in the marketplace – the power to distinguish.

The burning question, then, is how does the company decide which portions of the e-discovery workflow to bring in-house?  The answer is relatively simple: you follow the money (right out of the front door in many cases).  Where is the company spending most of its e-discovery budget, and are those portions of the workflow good candidates to bring in-house?  Typically, processing data and review are the most expensive phases of any e-discovery project.  The logic here is simple: if you send 100GB of ESI to outside counsel to review, it will be more expensive and time-consuming than sending only 20GB.  Thus, processing, analysis, and first-pass review are great candidates to be brought in-house from an ROI perspective, and bringing these phases in-house could facilitate a form of early case assessment given the right solution.

Now, suppose a company decides to bring processing, analysis, and first-pass review in-house, also leveraging their chosen technology solution for early case assessment.  Now what?  The process can simply be repeated.  Given the solution implemented, what happens if we get sued tomorrow?  What other portions of the e-discovery workflow will need to be outsourced and how will we do that?  What will that cost?  Is there a better way?  The company can continue this process until it determines that either all portions of its e-discovery workflow have been successfully brought in house or the ROI of bringing additional portions of the workflow in house does not justify additional projects at that time.  This analysis should then be repeated on a regular basis to ensure the current solution is still meeting the needs of the organization and that market or industry shifts have not created additional opportunities for cost savings.

Although an effective and defensible in-house e-discovery solution likely cannot be built in a day, a carefully crafted plan of attack and a thorough understanding of the organization’s particular needs can strategically position it for long term success.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Shira Scheindlin is famous for a number of things in her electronic data discovery opinions, but one notable aspect is her use of quotes to set the tone for her landmark decisions.  In Zubulake she quoted Cool Hand Luke (“What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.”) and in her latest opinion she quotes George Santayana (”[t]hose who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”).

Pension Committee of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan, et al., v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, et al. (“Pension Committee”) is generating a lot of buzz and reminds me of the Yogi Berra quote: “this is like déjà vu all over again” … particularly when thinking back to her landmark Zubulake decisions.  In this opinion, Judge Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York pens another potential electronic discovery classic, while simultaneously paying homage to her past opus.

Before we get into the “how” and “what” of the 85 page opinion, it’s probably reasonable to posit the “why” question, particularly when Judge Scheindlin and her team spent 300 hours on the mammoth undertaking.

“I, together with two of my law clerks, have spent an inordinate amount of time on this motion. We estimate that collectively we have spent close to three hundred hours resolving this motion. I note, in passing, that our blended hourly rate is approximately thirty dollars per hour (!) well below that of the most inexperienced paralegal, let alone lawyer, appearing in this case. My point is only that sanctions motions, and the behavior that caused them to be made, divert court time from other important duties-namely deciding cases on the merits.”

So, why was this fact pattern worthy of the inordinate amount of briefing time (regardless of the inconceivably low $9,000 fee)?  A skeptic might postulate that Judge Scheindlin has been out of the limelight lately, often being eclipsed by Judges Peck and Grimm.  It’s also been a year since her Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collins & Aikman Corp., opinion and it’s likely that she wanted to hearken back to the good ole Zubulake days, where she had the ear of the entire electronic discovery world.  Her tribute is less than subtle, as she even subtitles Pension Committee: “Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later.”

Less skeptically, however, she likely sees a host of matters rife with electronic data discovery disputes caused by the bar’s lack of e-discovery savvy.  It seems plausible that Pension Committee is a way for her to coalesce leanings from Zubulake (and beyond) into one, clear expression of legal duties.

Given the length of her opus, we won’t dissect the entire opinion as Ralph Losey did (chockablock with flying gerbils), but will instead focus in on the enduring and potentially controversial sections.  As way of background, the dispute at hand focused on claims by a group of investors who brought an action to recover losses of 550 million dollars stemming from the liquidation of two British Virgin Islands based hedge funds.  Unlike many typical e-discovery disputes, this instant action focused on the conduct of the plaintiffs as they attempted to deal with the often murky landscape of ESI preservation, collection and production.  Fortunately, Judge Scheindlin provided much needed foreshadowing to both readers and bloggers alike in her opening comments:

“Because this is a long and complicated opinion, it may be helpful to provide a brief summary up front. I begin with a discussion of how to define negligence, gross negligence, and willfulness in the discovery context and what conduct falls in each of these categories. I then review the law governing the imposition of sanctions for a party’s failure to produce relevant information during discovery. This is followed by factual summaries regarding the discovery efforts–or lack thereof–undertaken by each of the thirteen plaintiffs against whom sanctions are sought, and then by an application of the law to those facts. Based on my review of the evidence, I conclude that all of these plaintiffs were either negligent or grossly negligent in meeting their discovery obligations. As a result, sanctions are required.”

The finding of sanctions aside, Judge Scheindlin goes out of her way to crystallize duties and identify the type of conduct can cause an e-discovery breach.  Despite significant caveats about the fact intensive nature of each discovery dispute, she nevertheless proffers the following synthesis, which has caused no shortage of consternation amongst electronic discovery practitioners and commentators:

“After a discovery duty is well established, the failure to adhere to contemporary standards can be considered gross negligence. Thus, after the final relevant Zubulake opinion in July, 2004, the following failures support a finding of gross negligence, when the duty to preserve has attached:

• to issue a written litigation hold;
• to identify all of the key players and to ensure that their electronic and paper records are preserved;
• to cease the deletion of email or to preserve the records of former employees that are in a party’s possession, custody, or control;
• and to preserve backup tapes when they are the sole source of relevant information or when they relate to key players, if the relevant information maintained by those players is not obtainable from readily accessible sources.

[bullets added]

Assuming Pension Committee is followed beyond the bounds of the Southern District of New York, which is still speculative at this stage, it certainly means sleepless nights for corporate legal departments with litigation hold and preservation processes that are less than “contemporary.” While it’s hard to argue with the theoretical appropriateness of the above items, it’s questionable how practical these steps are, particularly for large enterprises that may have dozens (or hundreds) of litigation holds in place at any one point in time.  Multiply the numbers of holds times the disparate types of ESI and the complexities of the IT infrastructures and Judge Scheindlin’s seemly innocuous mandate can quickly become a tactical minefield, rife with sanctions possibilities.  Unfortunately, with the rapid proliferation of social media usage and cloud computing, this already complex paradigm is only going to become more vexing in the near term.

Given that the number of struggling enterprises is legion, it does certainly beg the question whether more folks than not can live up to this new “reasonableness” standard.  If not, this articulation may materially raise the bar and result in a demonstrable increase in spoliation motions, if that were possible.  Already, spoliation charges are often referred to as a “case within the case” by many, something which Judge Scheindlin reluctantly acknowledges.

“Finally, I note the risk that sanctions motions, which are very, very time consuming, distracting, and expensive for the parties and the court, will be increasingly sought by litigants. This, too, is not a good thing. For this reason alone, the most careful consideration should be given before a court finds that a party has violated its duty to comply with discovery obligations and deserves to be sanctioned. Likewise, parties need to anticipate and undertake document preservation with the most serious and thorough care, if for no other reason than to avoid the detour of sanctions.”

[Footnotes omitted]

Perhaps ratcheting up of the e-discovery standard of care can be rationalized as aspiration in nature.  Yet, it is hard to see how it reflects the actual business practices of many in corporate legal departments, particularly when the actions/inactions occurred (as in this case) several years ago when nascent notions about best practices were still evolving.

“The age of this case requires a dual analysis of culpability–plaintiffs’ conduct before and after 2005. The Citco Defendants contend that plaintiffs acted willfully or with reckless disregard, such that the sanction of dismissal is warranted.  Plaintiffs admit that they failed to institute written litigation holds until 2007 when they returned their attention to discovery after a four year hiatus. Plaintiffs should have done so no later than 2005, when the action was transferred to this District. This requirement was clearly established in this District by mid2004, after the last relevant Zubulake opinion was issued. Thus, the failure to do so as of that date was, at a minimum, grossly negligent.”

[Footnotes omitted]

Perhaps my biggest issue with this decision is that it (perhaps myopically) places an inordinate level of importance and awareness of the Zubulake decisions, particularly for those outside Judge Scheindlin’s district.  This lawsuit was initially brought in Florida and “[w]hile a duty to preserve existed in the Southern District of Florida at the time this action was filed, no court in the Eleventh Circuit articulated a ‘litigation hold’ requirement until 2007.”  In my mind, it hardly seems fair to retroactively imbue the Plaintiffs with this type of comprehension and duty.

At the end of the day, and despite quibbling with the equities involved, Judge Scheindlin has largely succeeded in moving the e-discovery ball forward.  The opinion will likely be one of the most widely read cases in 2010 and deservedly so since it describes with precision and clarity the burdens and penalties in the evolving area of ESI spoliation.  The main question will be to what extent will other jurisdictions adopt the same culpability framework and extend the reach of Pension Committee just as happened with the Zubulake line of cases.

Certainly, it could be “déjà vu all over again.”

Yesterday, I explained what I think Iron Mountain’s acquisition of Mimosa says about valuations in the archiving / e-discovery industry. Today, I will address the other questions that people commonly ask about the deal – why did Iron Mountain (Stratify) do it, and what does it mean for the electronic discovery industry?

In their letter to customers announcing the deal, Ramana Venkata (President of Iron Mountain Digital) and TM Ravi (CEO of Mimosa) point to two main benefits from combining the companies. On the archiving side, Iron Mountain can now offer Mimosa as an on-premise solution in addition to its existing hosted service. If it can integrate the two, then it can offer “location-independent” archiving which “will help you transparently and seamlessly move data between the on-premises data center and the cloud.” One additional benefit to Iron Mountain, which is not mentioned in the letter, is that it could even leverage Mimosa’s technology for its hosted offering, and replace Mimecast who it currently pays to provide this service.

On the e-discovery front, Iron Mountain now has a suite of 2 products and 1 service: Mimosa NearPoint for collection and preservation; the Stratify eVantage appliance for ECA (Early Case Assessment); and, Stratify Legal Discovery Services for review and production. This makes Iron Mountain a competitor to Autonomy, Clearwell, EMC/Kazeon, and everyone else listed in Gartner’s recent MarketScope covering e-discovery software companies. I’m sure the hope is that there’s synergy between the different products so that, for example, Mimosa’s experience in on-premise software will help Iron Mountain drive adoption of its new Stratify eVantage appliance behind the firewall.

Will the combination work? As Barry Murphy (a former Mimosa employee) points out in his excellent post on this topic, a lot depends on execution. But there are at least 2 reasons to be doubtful. First, the competition is far ahead, and will be hard to catch. As Barry, points out: “Iron Mountain will have a tough road ahead to compete with the likes of Autonomy, which bought successful archiving company Zantaz and has now had almost two years of development time for its hybrid on-premise/SaaS archiving offering.” The same is true on the e-discovery side, where companies like Clearwell have hundreds of corporate customers for on-premise ECA and review.

The second reason to doubt why the combined company will be any more successful than either were before the acquisition is that Mimosa and Iron Mountain Digital serve very different markets. Most of Mimosa’s customers are small to medium sized companies; most of Iron Mountain Digital (ie., Stratify)’s revenue comes from law firms. So it’s not obvious that by combining them you create a company well-suited to serving large corporations, which is the sweet spot for e-discovery and archiving.

It will be interesting to watch events unfold.

On February 21, Iron Mountain Digital (formerly Stratify) announced it had acquired Mimosa Systems for $112 million. The deal was widely rumored at LegalTech New York last month, so it came as no surprise. I know several people closely connected with Mimosa and I’m happy for them that the company has found a good home.

From an industry perspective, there are two interesting questions about this deal, and I’ll cover the first of them in this post: what does the price suggest about the valuation of archiving/e-discovery companies?

To answer that question, you have to consider Mimosa’s history and financial performance. The company was founded in December 2003, and proceeded to raise $51.5 million in venture funding over 5 years from Clearstone Venture Partners, August Capital, JAFCO, Mayfield, and few others. Initially, it had great traction in the market and, at various industry events around Silicon Valley, I would often hear about how well it was doing. But then, as often happens with startup companies, Mimosa lost its way, and the growth slowed. I don’t know exactly why that happened; it could have been the recession, competition from Microsoft Exchange 2010’s new archiving features, or something completely different. But the signs were unmistakable: there were layoffs, pay cuts for the remaining staff, and (according to Venture Source) a series of 4 small debt financings totaling $10.4 million between May 2009 and January 2010.

The deal documents, which were sent out to all shareholders to approve the acquisition, reveal the financials. In 2009, Mimosa generated $20.6 million in revenue and $32.7 million in expenses, meaning it was burning about $1 million dollars every month.

So, to answer the question that many in the archiving / e-discovery community are asking, that means Iron Mountain Digital paid 6 times trailing revenue to acquire Mimosa. That’s about the same multiple it paid for Stratify in October 2007, about the same multiple Dell paid for MessageOne, and a lower multiple than EMC recently paid for Kazeon. It is reasonable to expect that the revenue multiple would have been much higher if Mimosa had been profitable, or growing more quickly.

Overall, I think this is a great outcome for Mimosa’s shareholders who must be delighted. My congratulations to them, and to the entire Mimosa team.

Next week, as most of you know, is the Superbowl of legal technology events.  And, so if this is a newsflash, you’ve probably found this blog by searching for the European Cockpit Association (“ECA”).  If on the other hand you have an unnatural affinity for the other ECA – early case assessment — then you’ve probably been planning to head to this year’s LegalTech show immediately after the last one ended.

For fear of gratuitous self promotion, I will be moderating several panels with e-discovery pundits on the first day. Akin to the upcoming Superbowl, these “Supersessions” will be chockablock with EDD luminaries and it’ll be all I can do to get a word in edgewise.  Below is the schedule. Feel free to pre-register since we expect a packed house.

1:00 – 2:00 pm: The E-Discovery Expert Panel.  This session will discuss best practices in e-discovery. Panelists include:

• Jay Brudz, senior counsel, legal technology at GE;
• Ron Best, director of legal information systems at Munger, Tolles and Olson, LLP, and
• Brian Hill, senior analyst at Forrester Research, Inc.

2:15 – 3:15 pm: Strategies for Transparency and Cooperation in E-Discovery. This session will discuss how to move toward a more cooperative resolution of legal disputes.  Speakers include:

• Sean Gallagher, partner at Hogan & Hartson, LLP and
• Lauren Schwartzreich, associate at Outten and Golden, LLP

3:30 – 4:30 pm: Ask the E-Discovery Doctors. The “doctors” will take questions from the audience and provide their prescriptions for a wide-range of e-discovery topics.

• Craig Ball, attorney and president, Craig D. Ball, P.C.
• Ralph Losey, attorney and co-chair of E-Discovery Practice Group, Akerman Senterfitt,
• George Socha, attorney and president, Socha Consulting, LLC

While it’s probably not fair to pick a favorite session, my sense is that the last one will be the most anarchical, chaotic, and stimulating, assuming that the speakers don’t take the faux Doctor thing too far (yes, they will be in scrubs).

Please come by to get your recommended daily dose of e-discovery insights.

Earlier this month, Gartner published its third annual MarketScope For E-Discovery Product Vendors. Written by Debra Logan, Whit Andrews, and John Bace, the report is an excellent survey of this rapidly evolving market. It is also a useful buyer’s guide for anyone considering a purchase of electronic discovery software, since it analyzes and rates various e-discovery players. You can buy the report at Gartner’s site, or access a complimentary copy here.

The report covers 18 e-discovery software vendors. Missing from the report are e-discovery hosted/software-as-a-service (SaaS) providers and small e-discovery software vendors. Gartner believes the market is maturing and only larger companies are viable in the long run. So it increased the minimum annual revenue requirement for inclusion in the report to $15 million.

My guess is that next year Gartner will discontinue the MarketScope and move instead to a Magic Quadrant for e-discovery software. Doing so would be very helpful for the entire industry. Now that George Socha and Tom Gelbmann no longer publish their annual rankings, Gartner’s report is the only way for people to get a sense for how different products compare against each other. That alone makes it required reading for anyone considering an investment in e-discovery software.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheesy Successories posters aside (for an alternative take, go here), the need to work together is much more than just a cliché in today’s environment.

In its recent brief on the five major trends that will shape business technology in 2009, leading management consultancy McKinsey and Company noted one trend in particular which highlights the urgent need for an organization’s IT and legal groups to forge better, faster, and more efficient ways of collaborating on electronic discovery issues:

Regulators demand more from IT

Government scrutiny of business will intensify in many developed countries. Already, in the United States, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency weighs in on the resiliency of banking systems, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires that many pharmaceutical systems be “validated,” and Sarbanes-Oxley drives decisions about accounting systems in every industry. In the future, policy makers and regulators will probably demand that IT systems capture more and better data in order to gain greater insight into and control over how banks manage risk, pharma companies manage drugs, and industrial companies affect the environment. Government officials also will monitor many legal and business rules more closely to ensure compliance with mandates. Successful CIOs should enhance their relationships with internal legal and corporate-affairs teams and be prepared to engage productively with regulators. They will need to seek solutions that meet government mandates at manageable cost and with minimal disruption.

- McKinsey Quarterly, February 2009

The current economic environment is creating a “Double Whammy” within almost every enterprise that has ongoing or pending electronic discovery issues (and are there many organizations left out there that don’t?):

• As the McKinsey article notes, regulators will increasingly be demanding more from IT as government scrutiny of business intensifies. Just look at the just-launched recovery.gov site to see the level of transparency and accountability that the government is aiming for with regard to the stimulus package. The bailout will not directly affect every business, but there is a new sheriff in town who will likely set the tone across the entire business landscape.
• At the same time, there is relentless pressure on controlling costs. When times are tough, dollars that can be saved on the expense side are much more valuable that top-line revenue, since 100% of every dollar of cost savings goes directly to the bottom line.

The net-net: Enterprises will be forced to do more, with less.

How? With regard to electronic discovery, there is a lot of low-hanging fruit to be picked in the area of IT and legal cooperation:

• In-house legal teams should meet with IT (if they aren’t already) to help them better understand the nature of electronic discovery, particularly as it applies to the more “upstream” parts of the process (specifically, identification, preservation, and collection) which IT tends to be more responsible for. Through a better understanding of the nature of electronic discovery, IT can improve its ability find the right documents, avoiding over-collection and reducing downstream processing costs. In addition, new electronic discovery technologies are making it increasingly easy for legal to own more of the process, reducing the electronic discovery burden on IT.
• Conversely, IT should coordinate with in-house legal teams to provide advice and mentoring as legal seeks to bring e-discovery platforms in-house to assist with early case assessment, search, culling, and analysis. To many legal teams, bringing e-discovery in-house may seem like a daunting proposition, but enterprise software has been around for a long time, and learning from IT’s experiences can make the process far less intimidating.

Yes, regulators are going to be far more demanding in the future than they have been in the past. But some simple collaboration and coordination between IT and legal will go a long way toward lightening the regulatory burden, especially as it pertains to electronic discovery.