e-discovery 2.0

In their latest survey, entitled “E-Discovery Market Trends: A View from the Legal Department,” Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG) analysts Brian Babineau and Katey Wood analyze a number of interesting statistics and provide a range of insightful conclusions.  By surveying general counsel from large, mid-market (500-999 employees) and enterprise-class organizations in North America they were able to dive into a range of eDiscovery topics, including pain points, operational expenses and prioritizations on a go-forward basis.  Some are more intuitive than others, but in either case the results serve as good calibration metrics for those who endeavor to understand the corporate eDiscovery state of the nation.

“Most corporations are not tracking e-discovery spending…” In what may be the most notable finding of this ESG report, 60% of survey respondents claim that they did not track annual eDiscovery spending in 2010.  The authors correctly note that the eDiscovery process, “which can be highly unpredictable due to its project-by-project nature to begin with, has historically been outsourced to service providers charging at variable rates and often billed back to companies via their law firms.”  Despite the significant challenges of tracking eDiscovery spending, it’s nevertheless irresponsible for organizations to keep their heads in the sand regarding such a significant operational expense.

As the old saw goes, “you can’t manage what you can’t measure,” so it’s almost inconceivable to think that so many organizations aren’t tracking such a significant expense category.  For organizations who want to create a repeatable business process, as opposed to the fire-drill chaos that is typically associated with eDiscovery, it’s vitally important to accurately capture core eDiscovery metrics.  For starters, it’s useful to understand basic collection parameters, such as of the typical numbers of key custodians, average data volumes per custodian, data expansion rates, de-duplication statistics, etc.  Once these metrics are in place, it then becomes possible to manage the process and reduce costs.

Katey went on to expound in an exclusive quote for EDD 2.0:

“E-discovery can be managed as a strategic business process with an understanding of costs, performance and outcomes. When there’s no basis for reporting or comparison, it’s pin the tail on the donkey.  Corporate litigants won’t ever know they’re getting their money’s worth if they don’t even know what they’re spending.”

“E-Discovery accuracy/efficiency isn’t being measured, in large part.” Similar to the failure to measure eDiscovery costs, a full two thirds of GCs (67%) aren’t tracking the “efficiency and/or accuracy of e-discovery document review.” Until corporate counsel can link expectations of competency/efficiency with oversight and performance metrics, outside law firms will likely avoid having their feet held to the fire.  This passive stance makes transparency and process improvement difficult at best.  Additionally, this model of having expectations for efficiency, with low or no accountability, doesn’t bode well for the quick adoption of enabling technologies like predictive coding, since the driver has to inherently be the need/desire for increased efficiency (which axiomatically equals lower law firm review bills).

“Corporate information governance and litigation readiness (especially defensible deletion) are a priority, but not yet a reality.” From an internal prioritization perspective, more than two thirds (69%) of respondents identified their desire to expire/delete data more consistently, “thereby limiting unnecessary data retention for future litigation requests.”  Savvy enterprises correctly recognized the “multi-prong threat of unregulated data retention: the large amounts of irrelevant data ultimately produced for legal review, the greater difficulty of hanging onto potentially litigious documents past their required retention periods.”

This finding is very encouraging, and it ties into the upward momentum the industry is seeing regarding information governance generally – particularly linking the reactive (right) side of the EDRM with the logically connected and proactive (left) side of the EDRM.  As a good first step it’s critical to see organizations now associating good information governance hygiene with lower costs and better eDiscovery response times.  The ESG finding also triangulates with results from the recent Information Retention and eDiscovery Survey, which found that companies having good information governance hygiene were often able to respond much faster and more successfully to an eDiscovery/investigation requests, often suffering fewer negative consequences.

The only downside to the positive information governance trend, as reported by the survey, was that,

“while there are great benefits to defensible deletion, internal initiatives for implementing it too often are stymied by difficulty in obtaining cross functional consensus and authorization, particularly as it touches so many other critical processes like regulatory compliance and legal hold.”

“Legal hold processes are still very manual.” Another similar question revealed that many companies are attempting to get their information governance house in order, but are still in the very early stages.  When asked about their  current legal hold notification and tracking process, a whopping 69% of organizations said that they are using a “manual process performed by internal staff using e-mail and spreadsheets, etc.”  And, another 6% said they either had no formal process or tracking mechanism.

Given the risks attendant to flaws in the preservation process this area is ripe for improvement.  The good news is that 54% of survey respondents are intending to improve their legal hold process, with 25% planning improvement within the next 12 months.  This is a healthy acknowledgement that there is risk, and with a modicum of investment (time, personnel, procedures, and technology) the legal hold area can be brought up to current best practices.

The ESG survey is a welcome temperature gauge into the state of corporate legal departments.  It notes, in conclusion, “with the staggering growth, diversity and dispersion of data, the pain e-discovery is currently causing large and serial litigants are only a symptom of the larger problem of unwieldy and under-developed information management affecting all businesses.”  With data insights from the ESG survey, it’s becoming clear that foundational information governance elements (like deploying auditable legal hold procedures, tracking eDiscovery spending, updating data maps, etc.) are desperately needed by the many organizations that want to turn eDiscovery into a repeatable business process.  The good news is that many of these organization have improvements in mind for the next 12 months, and the challenge will be to make sure these proactive projects maintain the same level of organizational urgency that it often present for more reactive tasks.

Fulbright & Jaworski has conducted their Litigation Trends survey for nearly the past decade and the results are always interesting since they tend to capture the mindset of inside counsel and litigators as they anticipate the upcoming year.  In their 8th Annual Litigation Trends Survey, Fulbright noted that 92% of U.S. respondents predict that litigation will either increase or stay the same in the upcoming year.  This trend bodes well for players in the litigation services and eDiscovery sectors, and confirms the counter cyclical nature of the industry.  Breaking down the perceived increases across industry verticals, the Survey noted that the biggest anticipated jumps were in the technology, financial services, healthcare and insurance sectors.  Meanwhile energy (the leading sector from the prior year) was one of the few that predicted a decrease.

Going behind the scenes, there were a number of factors that caused respondents to predict litigation increases.  First and foremost, respondents indicated that “stricter regulation was the number one reason” for the increases, particularly with insurance, financial services, health care and retail sectors.  These concerns around regulatory compliance have been increasingly keeping GCs and corporate boards awake as the governance climate continues to heat up.  This regulation driver showed a demonstrable increase with 46% of all respondents having retained outside counsel to assist with regulatory proceedings, up from 37% in the prior year.  The Survey noted that U.S. companies facing a regulatory investigation were most likely to be under pressure from the DOJ (27%), State Attorney General (24%), OSHA (18%), the EPA (16%) and U.S. Attorney (13%).  Also on the regulatory front, U.S. respondents have increasingly begun to recognize the potential jurisdictional reach of the U.K. Bribery Act, with 25% of U.S. companies stating that they have already conducted a review of existing procedures in preparation for implementation.

In addition to managing risk, most in-house counsel are keenly concerned with controlling litigation costs.  The good news here is that associated costs are predicted to be generally flat.  Yet, eDiscovery remained the largest category targeted for increased spending, with 18% of respondents making this their top priority.  Interestingly, though, large enterprises seem to have been doing a good job of getting eDiscovery expenses under control (likely by taking expensive elements of the EDRM in-house), with these expenses declining among the largest companies, from 42% last year to 24% this year.

The Survey noted that the use of cloud computing has gained speed, with 34% of all public companies using the cloud.  And yet, only 40% of those companies using cloud computing have had “to preserve and/or collect data from the cloud in connection with actual or threatened litigation, disputes or investigations.”  This number appears curiously light, and it should definitely rise during the upcoming year as the plaintiff’s bar gets more savvy about this relatively new source of responsive electronically stored information (ESI).

On the narrower eDiscovery front, the Survey honed in on newer issues like cooperation.  Here, the Survey noted that this Sedona-sponsored concept still hasn’t completely taken hold, with nearly 40% of all respondents claiming that “their company has not made the effort to be more transparent or cooperative” due to a litigation strategy of “defending on all fronts.”  This area appears particularly muddled, with one third saying their previous attempts haven’t been reciprocated and another quarter feeling that their company was already transparent.

All in all,  the 2011 Fulbright Litigation Trends Survey notes trends that appear to be largely in line with the primary drivers of (1) managing risk and (2) lowering litigation costs.  On the risk side, compliance with an increasingly complex regulatory environment is offsetting any potential lull in the litigation environment.  And, on the cost side, eDiscovery continues to be a hot button issue, particularly with the relatively new challenges associated with ESI distributed on social media, cloud computing and mobile sources.

In the eDiscovery universe, hot trends and evolving technologies tend to capture the attention of the legal community.  Discoverable data sources have been the focus in the courtroom for quite some time, and just like the “popular kids” from high school, email has held the crown of eDiscovery darling.  Not surprisingly, the more time end-users spend in a specific medium (on Facebook, for example), the more likely data will be created – and as that data multiplies, it has the potential to become compelling in discovery.  It seems that many U.S. organizations are electing to allow social media use at work and for work, rather than blocking access.  For obvious reasons, granting this access is culturally desirable, but from an eDiscovery perspective social media use introduces new complications.  However, don’t be mystified.  There is nothing that new here.

Recently, Symantec issued the findings of its second annual Information Retention and eDiscovery Survey, which examined how enterprises are coping with the tsunami of electronically stored information.  Having lost some popularity, email came in third place (58%) to files/documents (67%) and database/application data (61%) when respondents were asked what type of documents were most commonly part of an eDiscovery request.  The new kid on the block for data sources is social media, reported by 41% of those surveyed.  Social media is in essence no different than any other data type in the eDiscovery process, it’s just the newest.  Said another way; social media is the new email.

Of course, it’s no longer news to proclaim that communications from social networking sites are discoverable.  What is newsworthy is the question of how to effectively store, manage and discover these communications which come in such varying forms, making the logistics of doing so for social media different than for traditional mediums.  Like email, social media is used by everyone (ubiquitous), is viral (fast), has mixed uses (professional and personal) and there is a lot of it (high volume).  Unlike email, social media comes in many different forms (Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.), is not controlled within an organization’s firewalls (custody, possession and control issues), and has more complex requirements within the information governance lifecycle (technology is needed to ingest social media into an archive).

The two main areas to examine in relation to social media use and an organization’s policies are: 1) the legal issues that apply specifically to the organization, and 2) the logistical and technical requirements for preservation and collection.  Essentially, what is the organization’s policy surrounding social media use, and how can the information be accessed if need be? Luckily, technology exists that is nimble enough to be able to ingest social media and archive it in accordance with an organization’s policy, should one exist.  Organizations that have recognized social media as the newest kid on the block have, ideally: developed a social media policy, purchased (or deployed) collection and retention technology, and instituted training for their employees.  They have also integrated social media into their information governance strategy and document retention policy. Remember, not all organizations will have to archive social media, but all should address social media with a policy and training.

Other organizations have not accepted social media as part of the evolutionary process of eDiscovery.  They proceed at their own peril – as did the organizations that did not control their email some ten years ago!

These organizations will be in crisis when they need to collect social media for litigation and will most likely have a large lesson in damage control, as well as an equally large bill.  They will be uneducated, ill-prepared and overwhelmed about how to discover social media.  Without a policy, they will have to over collect by default, which will drive up the costs for collection and possibly for downstream review.  Given that the aforementioned survey found nearly half of the respondents did not have an information retention policy in place, and of this group, only 30% were discussing how to do so, it is likely that many of these organizations do not yet have a social media policy either.

With this background in mind, organizations should evaluate which laws and regulations apply to their organization, develop a policy and train their employees on that policy.  Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

For more information about how IT and Legal can manage the impact of social media on their organization and to learn how archiving social media can be accomplished, please join this webcast from Symantec.

If you have been following my previous posts regarding possible amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules), then you know I promised a special interview with former United States Magistrate Judge Ron Hedges.  The timing of the discussion is perfect considering that a “mini-conference” is being hosted by a Federal Rules Discovery Subcommittee today (September 9th) in Dallas, TX.  The debate will focus on whether or not the Rules should be amended to address evidence preservation and sanctions.  I am attending the mini-conference and will summarize my observations as part of my next post.  In the meantime, please enjoy reading the dialogue below for a glimpse into Judge Hedges’ perspective regarding possible Rule amendments.

Nelson: You were recently quoted in a Law Technology News (LTN) article written by Evan Koblentz as saying, “I don’t see a need to amend the rules” because these rules haven’t been around long enough to see what happens.  Isn’t almost five years long enough?

Judge Hedges: No.  For the simple reason that both attorneys and judges continue to need education on the 2006 amendments and, more particularly, they need to understand the technologies that create and store electronic information.  The amendments establish a framework within which attorneys and judges make daily decisions on discovery.  I have not seen any objective evidence that the framework is somehow failing and needs further amendment.

Nelson: You also said the “big problem” is that people don’t talk enough.  What did you mean?  Hasn’t the Sedona Cooperation Proclamation made a difference?

Judge Hedges: The centerpiece of the 2006 amendments (at least in my view) is Rule 26(f).  I think it is fair to say that the legal community’s response to 26(f) has been, to say the least, varied. Civil actions with large volumes of ESI that may be discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1) cry out for extensive 26(f) meet-and-confer discussions that may take a number of meetings and require the presence of party representatives from, for example, IT.  There is an element of trust required between adversary counsel (with the concurrence of the parties they represent) that may be difficult to establish – but some cooperation is necessary to make 26(f) work.  Overlay that reality with our adversary system and the duty of attorneys to zealously advocate on behalf of their clients and you can understand why cooperation isn’t always a top priority for some attorneys.

However, “transparency” in discussing ESI is essential, along with advocacy and the need to maintain appropriate confidentiality. That’s where the Sedona Conference Proclamation can make a big difference. Has the Proclamation done that? It’s too early to reach a conclusion on that question, but the Proclamation is often cited and, as education progresses in eDiscovery, I am confident that the Proclamation will be recognized as a means to realize the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of litigation, as articulated under Rule 1.

Nelson: You also mentioned that the Federal Rules Advisory Committee might be running afoul of the Rules Enabling Act.  Can you explain?

Judge Hedges: There is a distinction between “procedural” and “substantive” rules.  The Rules Enabling Act governs the adoption of the former.  Rule 502 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is an example of a substantive rule that was proposed by the Judicial Conference.  However, since Rule 502 is a rule dealing with substantive privilege and waiver issues, it had to be enacted into law through an Act of Congress.  I am concerned that proposals to further amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may cross the line from procedural to substantive.  I am not prepared to suggest at this time, however, that anything I have seen has crossed the line.  Stay tuned.

Nelson: If you had to select one of the three options currently being considered (see page 264), which option would you select and why?

Judge Hedges: To start, I would not choose option 1, which presumes that the Rules can reach pre-litigation conduct consistent with the Rules Enabling Act.  My concern here is also that, in the area of electronic information, a too-specific rule risks “overnight” obsolescence, just as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, enacted in 1986, is considered by a number of commentators to be, at best, obsolescent.  Note also that I did not use the word “stored” when I mentioned electronic information, as courts have already required that so-called ephemeral information be preserved.  Nor would I choose option 2.  Absent seeing more than the brief description of the category on page 264, it seems to me that option 2 is likely to do nothing more than be a restatement of the existing law on when the duty to preserve is “triggered.”

So, by default, I am forced to choose option 3.  I presume a rule would say something like, “sanctions may not be imposed on a party for loss of ESI (or “EI”) if that party acted reasonably in making preservation decisions.”  There are a number of problems here. First, in a jurisdiction which allows the imposition of at least some sanction for negligence, all the rule would likely do is be interpreted to foreclose “serious” sanctions. Isn’t that correct? Or is the rule intended to supersede existing variances in the law of sanctions?  At that point, does the rule become “substantive”?   Second, how will “reasonableness” be defined?  Reasonableness supposes the existence of a duty – in this case, a duty to preserve.  For example, is there a duty to preserve ephemeral data that a party knows is relevant?  We come back full circle to where we began.

Remember, Rule 37(f) (now 37(e)) was intended to provide some level of protection against the imposition of sanctions, just as the categories are intended to.  Right?  And five years later 37(e) remains defined variously to be a “safe harbor” or a “lighthouse” by some lawyers such as Jonathan Redgrave or an “uncharted minefield” by others like me.

Nelson: What about heightened pleading standards after the Iqbal and Twombly decisions?  Do these decisions have any relevance to electronic discovery and the topic at hand?

Judge Hedges: Let me begin by saying that I am no fan of Twombly or Iqbal. The decisions, however well intended, have led to undue cost and delay all too often.  Not only is motion to dismiss practice costly for parties, but it imposes great burdens on the United States Courts and, as often as not, leads to at least one other round of motion practice as plaintiffs are given leave to re-plead.  All the while, parties have preservation obligations to fulfill and, in the hope of saving expense, discovery is often stayed until a motion is “finally” decided.  I would like to see objective evidence of the delay and cost of this motion practice (and I expect that the Administrative Office of the United States has statistical evidence already).  I would also like to see objective evidence from defendants distinguishing between the cost of motion practice and later discovery costs.

Putting all that aside, and if I had to accept one option, I would choose to allow some discovery that is integrated to the motion practice.  First, even without the filing of a responsive pleading, there should be a 26(f) meet-and-confer to discuss, if nothing else, the nature and scope of preservation and the possibility of securing a Rule 502(d) order. Second, while I have serious concerns about “pre-answer discovery” for a number of reasons, I would have the parties make 26(a)(1) disclosures while a motion to dismiss is pending or leave to re-plead has been granted in order to address the likely “asymmetry of information” between a plaintiff and a moving defendant.  Once the disclosures are made, I would allow the plaintiff to secure some information identified in the disclosures to allow re-pleading and perhaps obviate the need for continued motion practice.

All of this would, of course, require active judicial management.  And one would hope that Congress, which seems so interested in conserving resources, would recognize the vital role of the United States Courts in securing justice for everyone and give adequate funding to the Courts.

In my last post I announced that discussions are taking place that could change the way preservation and sanctions issues are handled within the federal court system.  The next round of discussions about possible amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) is scheduled to take place on September 9th in Dallas, Texas as part of a “mini-conference” led by the Discovery Subcommittee – a committee appointed by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules.  This post discusses three different rule amendment approaches that attendees have been asked to consider in order to help them prepare for the mini-conference.  A complete list of attendees, preparation materials, and questions the group will consider are included in the Advisory Committee’s June 29, 2011 memorandum to the participants.

The debate about whether or not rule amendments are even required is far from over.  A 452-page document located on the U.S. Courts’ website chronicles many of the meetings, notes, and submissions driving the current discussion.  Page 265 of the document contains a memorandum prepared by the Civil Rules Advisory Committee earlier this year, stating that:

“the Subcommittee has reached no conclusion on whether rule amendments would be a productive way of dealing with preservation/sanctions concerns, much less what amendment proposals would be useful.”

Despite concerns that amending the current rules now would amount to jumping the gun, there is an undeniable desire for more clarity around when the duty to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) is triggered, what must be preserved, and when the duty expires.  This momentum has resulted in the crafting of draft proposals that are likely to help frame the discussion on September 9th. The “proposals” are really draft approaches that have been broken down into three general categories described in the Civil Rules Advisory Committee’s memorandum, titled: “PRESERVATION/SANCTIONS ISSUES” (see page 263).  The Category 1 approach can best be described as providing a higher degree of specificity than the other approaches.  For example, the Category 1 approach provides a fairly detailed explanation of the duty to preserve evidence (Rule 26.1(a)) and details possible triggers (26.1(b)), the scope of the duty to preserve (26.1(c)), and sanctions (Rule 37).  Category 2 proposes a more general preservation rule, while Category 3 only addresses sanctions as a tool for influencing behavior.  The three categories are discussed in more detail below.

Category 1: Specific Rule

This draft includes many different exemplary lists, alternative approaches, and footnotes that highlight the fact that one of the key challenges with drafting a specific rule is trying to foresee all of the challenges that might lie in the road ahead.  For example, the draft rule provides a long list of events that could trigger the duty to preserve evidence, including everything from serving a pleading to taking “any other action” in anticipation of litigation.   The rule also provides a list of information types that are “presumptively excluded” from the preservation duty, such as deleted data on hard drives, temporary internet files, and physically damaged media.

The lists are helpful in that they provide guidance.  However, each list also includes a “catch-all” provision to address scenarios that might not be foreseeable.  The inclusion of catch-all provisions highlights the inherent challenge of providing more clarity and certainty without creating rules that are so inflexible that they are difficult to apply to unforeseen factual scenarios or technological developments.  Some might argue that trying to provide a laundry list of examples will make passage of new rules difficult because each item on the list will stir debate.  Others contend that the lists add little value because the catch-all provisions will still require litigators to pass the sniff test of “reasonableness.”

Despite the inherent challenges related to drafting rules with specificity, most practitioners would likely support the inclusion of lists or examples that provide at least some direction.  What is likely to be far more controversial with respect to Category 1 is the use of alternative language proposing fixed limits around custodians and litigation holds.  For example, one alternative would limit data preservation requirements to a fixed number of custodians and the duty to preserve evidence would similarly expire after a fixed number of years.  Bright line rules like these may be easier to understand, but they also tend to be controversial since they lack the flexibility necessary to fairly address every conceivable situation.

Category 2: General Rule

Like the Category 1 proposal, the Category 2 proposal uses lists and outlines several alternative approaches throughout the rule.  However, the Category 2 proposal fundamentally differs from Category 1 by outlining a more general approach.  For example, one of the alternatives essentially states that the duty to preserve evidence is triggered whenever a “reasonable person” would expect to be a party to an action.  Similarly, the ongoing duty to preserve information after the duty has been triggered would be evaluated based on what is described as a “reasonable period” under the circumstances.

The beauty of this more general approach lies in its simplicity and flexibility.  The idea is that evaluating conduct based on the “reasonableness” of a person’s actions is much easier than attempting to draft bright line legal guidelines that account for every possible factual scenario.  The flip side is that reasonable minds could differ and results could be inconsistent if there are no bright line rules.  What this means in the context of the federal rule discussion is that one judge might find a party’s conduct with respect to data preservation efforts reasonable, while another judge might issue sanctions based on the same set of facts.  In large part, it is this lack of certainty and guidance in the current rules that sparked the current debate in the first place.

Category 3: Sanctions-Based Rule

Unlike the first two categories, the Category 3 approach focuses only on sanctions and would act like more of a “back-end” rule.  In other words, the rule would not contain any specific directives about preservation, but it would provide direction in the areas of when and how sanctions might be applied.

Despite the draconian image a “sanctions” based rule might conjure up, the Category 3 rule may seem surprisingly lenient to some.  For example, absent extraordinary circumstances, the court would be prohibited from imposing any of the sanctions listed in Rule 37(b)(2) or from giving an adverse-inference instruction unless:

“the party’s failure to preserve discoverable information was willful or in bad faith and caused [substantial] prejudice in the litigation.”

The sanctions based approach would almost certainly have an impact on how parties handle upstream preservation related issues.  However, the key ingredients that will impact what kind of behavior this rule drives are the severity of the threatened sanction as well as the applicable standard.  For example, a party facing severe sanctions for conduct that is either negligent, willful or in bad faith is likely to take their preservation obligations seriously.  On the other hand, if the realm of possible sanctions is trivial, parties are less likely to take their preservation related obligations seriously.

Conclusion

The three rule approaches represent very early attempts at framing possible approaches to amending the FRCP.  If the Discovery Subcommittee chooses to recommend rule amendments following the September 9th mini-conference in Dallas, the proposed language is likely to be closer to final form and easier to assess than the current proposals.  I will continue to monitor the rule making discussion and provide commentary in future posts.  Stay tuned for my next post where former US Magistrate Judge Ron Hedges explains why he thinks the rule changes are unnecessary and why the current proposals might run afoul of the Rules Enabling Act.

Plenty has been written on both sides of the preserve-in-place debate.  The preservation duty in e-discovery, though, continues to be a root cause of sanctions and other trouble for litigants when ESI is involved.  In its 7^th Annual Litigation Trends Survey, Fulbright & Jaworski reported that 55% of responding companies still rely on custodians to identify and preserve their own information as the method used most frequently to preserve potentially relevant information in litigation or an investigation.  Also, 68% of respondents thought that the scope of the preservation duty needed further clarification.

One thing that does not seem to require much clarification is that the spoliation, whether inadvertent or intentional, can lead to serious consequences.  Leaving ESI “in the wild” is a gamble at best, and just like Vegas, the odds are stacked against us.

Preserving ESI in place sounds like a great idea at first, especially to the IT team – index all of the ESI in place and then search and collect what is actually needed for review and production – if and when that is required.  It may even seem to make better sense from a budgeting perspective given the fact that while preservation is required in all cases, the degree of production varies widely from case to case.  Frequently overlooked, however, are the many pitfalls that can lead to the inadvertent destruction or failure to produce relevant ESI — all resulting in serious sanctions from the court that the Legal team wants to avoid. These pitfalls include:

• the volatility of storage media and ESI
• disruption to business continuity if ESI is locked down in place (preventing the end user from modifying the files while being preserved) or if users are instructed not to modify existing relevant documents
• the expense of collecting, processing, reviewing, and producing larger datasets because the relevant ESI was not collected using a more targeted method
• overbroad preservation that could lead to irrelevant documents being preserved beyond their useful life or scheduled destruction date and then becoming subject to a preservation obligation in a subsequent matter

The general lack of control over the ESI as it resides on multiple systems and in multiple storage locations complicates preservation and makes it very difficult for large corporations to effectively and defensibly manage litigation holds.

Volatile Media

In a recent opinion out of the Southern District of New York, Judge Frank Maas held that failure to copy relevant ESI from a portable USB flash drive constituted a violation of the duty to preserve.  In Wilson v. Thorn Energy, LLC, 2010 WL 1712236 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), the defendant corporation identified a flash drive that contained relevant ESI, but rather than copying that data safely to a centralized evidence repository, the defendant’s employee chose to hold on to the drive, putting it instead into a desk drawer.  When the files were requested for review and production, the files could not be read from the drive.  The defendant’s employee attempted to repair the drive or recover the ESI contained on it, but those efforts failed.  This is a classic example of just how delicate some storage media is and how the failure to preserve relevant ESI on more reliable and robust media can lead to findings of culpability with respect to sanctions.  The notion of preserve in place can be baffling if you consider that the systems on which counsel or custodians would preserve their relevant ESI were not designed with e-discovery in mind, and many of these systems were designed using a pre-determined matrix that rates storage based on reliability, cost, and speed.  These determinations were based on business requirements, not litigation requirements, and custodians did not, at the time they created relevant ESI, necessarily choose to save those documents or emails on the highest quality storage system in the corporation.  In fact, unstructured data is everywhere – on file servers, on laptops, desktops, external hard drives, and mobile devices.  All of these systems vary in storage quality and redundancy, and they are subject to different risks such as theft, user abuse, carelessness, and even brief cases of amnesia (“What litigation hold?”).

Disruption of Business Continuity

Further complicating the equation are shared data sources where many employees are storing, editing, and collaborating on files in a shared environment.  Portal technologies and even good old file servers (the infamous “public” share) cannot effectively be put on litigation hold using a preserve in place strategy unless all files are immediately made read-only.  This would cause chaos and put an extreme strain on the business if done on a widespread basis.  Users who are not connected to the litigation at all would effectively be shut out, and all users would be less productive without the collaboration tools they have come to rely on.  Some would suggest instructing users to simply create a new copy of a protected document if they need to make changes.  However, this would quickly become burdensome as the universe of potentially relevant documents would grow each day.  Also, because users would not be able to clearly identify which documents were truly responsive, even irrelevant documents would be copied, causing an ongoing information management challenge.

Expense and Overbroad Preservation

As noted above, preserve in place strategies could lead to massive inflation of ESI, and without a more targeted approach, greater volumes of ESI would likely need to be collected, processed, analyzed, and reviewed.  While costs are on all of our minds, expense should not be the greatest of our fears.  With preserve in place invariably comes overbroad preservation.  A records retention policy has no effect if documents are being preserved that are profoundly irrelevant to the litigation, and these very documents may be the relevant documents in the next litigation.  Make no mistake – preservation must be fairly broad given that the Federal notice pleading requirement does not require plaintiffs to provide great insight into their claims.  However, a targeted collection can still be broad while defensibly limiting the scope of preservation.

Collect to Preserve – A Safer Alternative

There is a safer, more defensible solution that combines sound litigation hold procedures (such as written litigation hold notices with a custodian acknowledgement requirement) and suspension of automatic data purging for relevant sources with a targeted collection of potentially relevant ESI. This ensures that:

1. ESI is stored in a secure preservation location away from custodians, users, and the perils of daily business activity, and
2. The scope of preservation is defensibly managed.

Collections can be updated daily to include modified versions of existing documents as well as newly created documents within all identified sources.  Also, and perhaps most importantly, counsel is able to centrally manage the collection effort and thereby manage the preservation effort.  ESI is safe and custodians are not making decisions about what to keep and what to destroy.

Conclusion

As courts continue to offer guidance on what passes for adequate preservation, it’s clear that preserve in place is a gamble at best.  And as we saw in Wilson, the consequences can be disastrous when you lose.  I am sure that we have not seen the last preserve-in-place-gone-wrong story, but I am sure that for my money, I would rather take the safer bet.

Fulbright & Jaworski recently issued its “7^th Annual Litigation Trends Survey Report” and there were several interesting trends worth noting.   Not surprisingly, the general pace of litigation is forecast to increase upwards, relatively unabated, with more than 25% of respondents expecting their companies’ disputes to increase in the next 12 months.

Beyond this trend it’s clear that there’s also groundswell of support for a movement towards more e-discovery proportionality.  While also a big topic at Sedona’s annual conference (and discussed in the recent Moody case), a whopping 79% of US respondents think the “US Rules of Civil Procedure should be modified in some way to limit e-discovery in civil cases.”  While I haven’t heard of any specific proposals for a rules amendment, it’s clear that folks aren’t happy with the status quo, particularly with the increasing discovery burden facing enterprises dealing with unilateral disputes.   This discontent is likely tied to the fact that costs continue to escalate, with the survey indicating that more than 40% of the largest US companies (over $1B in Revenue) plan to “increase their spending on e-discovery in the next 12 months.”

Finally, the survey also focused on an area that’s getting an increasing level of scrutiny.   Fulbright asked “when preserving potentially relevant information in litigation or an investigation, what methods do you use most frequently for preserving electronically stored information?”  Leading the pack, with 55% of vote, was “rely on individual custodians to identify and preserve their own information.”  Custodian based collections have been discussed recently as being under fire in blogs and other recent cases such as Pension Committee and Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Properties Inc. The notion is that under- or un-supervised collection methodologies are dangerous because it’s relatively easy to paint the custodians at issue as either being motivated to hide responsive data or relatively unconcerned with compliance.  Nevertheless, it’s clear that (as of now) custodian-based collections are still somewhat “reasonable” given that more than 50% of the populous collects data this way.

On the other side of the spectrum from custodian based ESI collections, there are automated data collection tools and methods that can be considered too.  There are undoubtedly advantages (risk reduction, speed, audit trails, etc.)  to using “automated search software” for the collection of data (like 43% of the respondents did in the Fulbright survey).  Yet, it’s clear this isn’t a zero sum game – meaning there’s currently a place for both methodologies in the legal landscape.  For many organizations it becomes a risk management exercise as summarized in a recent  ARMA article entitled “Is ‘Manual’ Collection of ESI Defensible?”: “Companies may choose the manual collection of ESI to reduce costs, particularly if they have limited levels of litigation or lower risk levels posed by the litigation itself.”

In the end, like so many aspects of electronic discovery, almost any well thought out, well documented methodology *can* be defensible, but the onus is on the preserving/collecting party to buttress whatever poison they pick.  Defaulting into a method without preparation, auditing and follow-through is a recipe for disaster.

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

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

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

Read more about Legal discovery & Electronic Discovery Litigation