e-discovery 2.0

The electronic discovery world is buzzing about the malpractice case filed again Amlaw 100 firm McDermott Will & Emery.  There are a few good summaries here and here, but the gist of the complaint is that McDermott failed to properly supervise the electronic discovery efforts for their client J-M Manufacturing (J-M) in response to a qui-tam investigation.  According to a lawsuit filed by J-M in a California state court, McDermott inadvertently produced 3,900 privileged documents that were handed over to the federal government (and subsequently to a 3^rd party).

In terms of the nitty-gritty, the complaint alleges that McDermott used electronic discovery vendor Stratify (formerly part of Iron Mountain, now absorbed into Autonomy) to process and host the data.  Then, McDermott apparently retained a bevy of contract attorneys to review collected ESI from the 160 custodians, ultimately producing 250,000 documents that were presumably relevant, but not privileged.  The complaint contains the following particulars:

“12. Defendants owed PLAINTIFF a duty to render legal services competently. Defendants breached that duty by, inter alia, producing privileged documents to parties adverse to JME in litigation without obtaining its informed consent, failing to supervise attorneys and vendors MWE contracted with to perform the review and production of documents, and charging JME fees and costs for performance of such work that was not properly performed, or not performed at all.”

Surprisingly, this entire discussion is about a mere complaint filed against a large firm, who assuredly will wage numerous procedural challenges.   Thus, it’s questionable whether this case even sees the light of day.  So, why is it showing up on the radar of so many experts and pundits?  First of all, as Ralph Losey notes:

“This malpractice suit is an important and widely talked about event because it represents the first time, to my knowledge, that a law firm has been sued for e-discovery malpractice. We have all been waiting for this to happen. It was inevitable.”

But, novelty alone doesn’t usually make headlines, unless where there’s also smoke there’s probably fire.  Given the rise in electronic discovery sanctions against counsel, it has long been a fait accompli that a corporate client who experienced spoliation sanctions or an inadvertent production would start pointing fingers at other participants in the process, including the law firm that directed the e-discovery effort or the service provider who hosted the review process.  A recent Duke article noted that “[c]onsistent with the overall increase in sanction cases,…counsel sanctions for e-discovery have steadily increased since 2004.”  The article identified various levels of misconduct as the basis for counsel sanctions — “four cases involved negligence, seven cases involved gross negligence, nine cases involved reckless disregard, and ten cases involved intentional conduct or bad faith.”  Significantly, the article also noted that sanctions can be based on the “counsel’s personal execution of discovery tasks or on the counsel’s role in coordinating and overseeing the client’s discovery.”  That latter element seems to be the case with the claims against McDermott, and coupled with an inadvertent production (the third rail of electronic discovery) it doesn’t seem too shocking that a malpractice action would get filed.

This lawsuit does serve as a cautionary tale for those firms that continue to do things the old fashioned (i.e., 1.0) way.  While not an exhaustive list, this means some or all of the following: employing custodian self collections, using blind key word searches, failing to do sufficient data sampling (at the search and production phases), opting to not utilize early case assessment approaches, lack of search strategy and iteration, failing to optimize the review process, etc.  Surprisingly, old school approaches to electronic discovery are staggeringly common.  In fact, I’ve recently talked to some well traveled practitioners who’ve actually felt like their firms have gone backwards in recent years as prices for basic, block and tackling e-discovery services have plummeted.

If nothing else, we know that attorneys are hyper vigilant about their malpractice insurance.  And, it’s not too hard to see how premiums may go up with increasing e-discovery claims, successful or not.  So, while it’s unclear what will happen to McDermott, if it can happen to an Amlaw 28 firm (with roughly 1,000 lawyers) it can probably happen to any firm who’s not being as diligent as they should.

As a final note of supreme irony, McDermott will likely have to conduct electronic discovery as they defend their electronic discovery malpractice claims.  I wonder if they’ll use Stratify and outside contract attorneys.  I’d guess not.

At Clearwell, we’re constantly ruminating on innovative ways to help make our customers’ e-discovery process more efficient. Given the astronomical growth of social gaming, we began asking ourselves, “How can we harness the power and passion of millions of social gamers for the greater good?”

Questions like this really get our engineers cooking, and what they came back with is, to steal a word from one of our most popular product launches a year ago, simply “magical”.

Starting today, Clearwell’s eDiscovery World leverages the red-hot consumer social gaming trend to provide dramatic and previously unattainable increases in e-discovery technology training and productivity. In fact, the promise of eDiscovery World is so great that we have added social gaming as a core part of our product architecture across all Clearwell modules, from legal hold through production.

And we’re not stopping there. We believe that strategic social gaming delivers such powerful benefits to a best practices e-discovery process, that we’ve proposed modifying the EDRM diagram to account for this critical new requirement for truly end-to-end discovery.

Prior to today, unstructured obsession with social gaming has actually been an obstacle keeping end-to-end e-discovery from becoming a reality in many organizations. Interviews conducted across law firms, service providers, and every major enterprise vertical indicate that the time spent protecting crops from withering and urban blight from descending upon virtual cities has left insufficient hours with which to implement next-generation electronic discovery technology. As a result, legal costs have continued to rise and the risk of sanctions has grown substantially. One Director of E-Discovery at a Fortune 100 company, when grilled about his organization’s failure to implement a robust legal hold process, pleaded, “Can you spare some Facebook credits so I can buy a chicken?”

Now, Clearwell has turned this challenge into a tremendous opportunity. In eDiscovery World, we provide an alternative to traditional social gaming that allows users to perform end-to-end e-discovery in a virtual environment – first in training mode to gain e-discovery process knowledge and experience, and then working with live documents and high-stakes cases. All stages of the e-discovery process are functional in the eDiscovery World environment, which is backed by a robust cloud computing platform able to support the largest and most complex cases. Best of all, in addition to the substantial productivity gains our beta customers have already achieved, many have even found their employees clamoring to forego significant portions of their salaries in order to earn precious Facebook credits, thus delivering dramatic cost savings for the organization.

eDiscovery World is truly a win-win, and we couldn’t be more excited about it. Enjoy!

The electronic discovery blogosphere is filled with analysis of the recent opinion by Judge Sandra Beckwith of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on the Moody v. Turner case. What is striking about the case is that it reveals a huge gap in understanding the pitfalls of prolonged discovery disputes in the context of attempts by thought leaders to prevent exactly the issues elicited in this opinion. As the excellent post by Ralph Losey indicates, in this case, it is an affront to have this play out in front of Judge Beckwith, a signatory to The Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation.

In reviewing the facts of the case, here are highlights on some of the process missteps:

Lack of Early Data Analysis

It is not obvious to some how important it is to perform an early analysis of the data before agreeing to search  ESI for a certain number of custodians and apply certain keywords. This case illustrates three reasons why early data analysis is critically important .

First, the producing party must identify and communicate the right list of custodians. If there is any change or expansion of scope, that needs to be communicated as well. In this case, the Defense team, at their pre-trial 26(f) conference with the Plaintiffs, agreed to produce ESI for twenty six custodians, but chose to send Preservation Notices to larger number of individuals.  While this act by itself is commendable, the lack of prompt communication to the Plaintiffs is certainly a misstep that the Plaintiff chose to latch on to as incomplete production of ESI.

Second, the producing party must have a handle on scope of searches before committing to “run them”.  In reviewing the document Case: 1:07-cv-00692-SSB Doc #: 43, Exhibit 7, it is apparent that the twenty production requests in that report are not trivial. An early analysis of both the data as well as searches at least on a small sample would have helped the producing party understand the scope and challenges of running those searches.

Third, the producing party must evaluate their collection, search, and production methods to evaluate the feasibility of producing metadata. As evidenced in the Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc-89, Page 19), it is clear that the Defense did not produce TIF images along with searchable text. However as noted in Doc-118, Page 18, footnote 10):

“In any event, parties are generally not required to produce the metadata of their data sets. See Wyeth v. Impax Labs., Inc., No. 06-222, 2006 WL 3091331 at *2… Turner has produced all ESI in TIFF format, except for Excel spreadsheets which were produced in native format given the substantial size of many of the spreadsheets (which, if in TIFF format, may print across hundreds of pages). Judge Hogan therefore rightfully declined to compel Turner to produce any additional metadata.”

This is a fairly common request and  one that the Plaintiffs could have placed in their pre-trial 26(f) conference.

Out of Control Production Requests

In reviewing the aforementioned court document, Doc #: 43, Exhibit 7, one can glean a wealth of information on the nature of searches requested by the Plaintiffs and the responses by the Defense team. The immediate problem evident in these requests is an issue raised by the Defense team – that the search requests are overly broad. Some of the search terms are “plan”, “method”, “rate” and “account”, which are certain to hit a very large number of documents. See below for one of the requests.

Production 1-Item 2: All documents other than emails that can be electronically or digitally searched as containing one or more terms that concern the Plan in any way or cash balance pension plans and contain the word “accrual,” “benefit,”, “benefit accrual,” “accrual of benefit”, “accrual methods,” … “calculate”, “calculation”.

This goes on and on, for about eighteen pages. Combined, the twenty production requests would clearly hit almost every collected document (a total of 118GB of documents), thus making a follow-on privilege or confidentiality review prohibitively expensive. It is the lack of specificity in these searches that makes the discovery request overly broad. On the other hand, the response from Defense appears to be also poorly constructed. In their response, what we see is the same boiler-plate text, which didn’t escape the notice of the Plaintiffs and the court.

“Defendants object to this Request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks documents that are neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible documents and (because Plaintiffs define “documents” to include electronic or computerized data compilations) seeks electronic documents that are not reasonably accessible due to undue burden and/or cost. Defendants further object to this Request because it implicates documents protected by the attorney-client and/or work-product privilege and any such documents will be withheld from production”

What would have helped the Defense’s case would be actual data supporting their claims. For example, if the defendants were to tabulate that words such as “plan” and “benefit” and provide actual document and/or hit counts, it would have bolstered their claim. As expected, this caused the Plaintiffs to submit a further filing, Doc-89 with a host of complaints, chief among them:

Defendants reported only (1) the total number of unique documents captured by the search of 17 terms and (2) the number of documents that contained the term “cash balance” but none of the Plaintiffs’ other terms. See Doc. 77-10 at 2.

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs appear to be on the right track, recommending:

On October 14, Plaintiffs wrote to Defendants and proposed an “iterative search process” to decide on a final set of search terms.

It seems clear in the on-going discovery disputes, an iterative search process was perceived as contrary to zealous advocacy of their client’s positions and not as a path to resolving further disputes, much as the Cooperation Proclamation suggests. In this context, engaging in a search expert is essential – someone who can modify the search to include more restrictive criteria to limit your search results. Why bother running an open-ended search and produce 29.4GB of useless junk, when you can combine these terms with Boolean, proximity, and other searches? The types of searches, and what each can offer, is a topic that the members of EDRM tackled in formulating their EDRM Search Guide, which is a must-read for anyone attempting to construct e-discovery searches.

Proportionality Arguments Without Strong Basis

An important point to note is that any discovery request that uses inefficient processes and inappropriate technologies will certainly result in undue burdens and cost.  It appears that the Defense team did not offer proper cost estimates (arguments put forth in Doc-77-10 notwithstanding), and just pushed an undue burden/cost argument with the hope that the courts would absolve them of discovery obligations. At the same time, the Plaintiffs did seem to have over-reached a bit on extending their discovery disputes with the hope of reaching a favorable outcome. Two examples of such attempts are:

1. Upon Defense producing the documents (Doc-118),

Turner has produced every responsive, non-privileged document obtained through the email ESI searches that related to the Plan; these comprise 4.1 GB, or more than 40,708 pages of documents.

The Plaintiffs counter with:

“Plaintiffs maintain that Turner should be compelled to produce the metadata for the email ESI it has produced because otherwise they allegedly “cannot know whether Defendants have searched all 33 custodians’ email files” and “cannot confirm whether any email files were electronic in origin (rather than printouts of emails) or determine whose files they came from.”

As noted earlier, request for metadata and the feasibility of producing it must be negotiated specifically in the 26(f) conference.

1. The attempt of the Plaintiffs to expand discovery, to compel any and every third party, including Defense’s former law firms, as well as inspect “shared network drives”, “non-shared drives” etc.

“Judge Hogan recognized that Turner should not be compelled to probe through the recesses of its internal electronic systems for even more ESI on top of the 47,000-plus hard copy documents and the 40,000-plus pages of ESI it has produced – because those additional searches are not likely to lead to the discovery of any evidence relevant to plaintiffs’ claims. Judge Hogan was presented with the gory history of Turner’s efforts to search through “shared network drives” and “non-shared drives,” emails and backups. He found these efforts to be sufficient, and rightly rejected plaintiffs’ demand for additional ESI.”

One can see that Plaintiff’s attempt to drag the electronic discovery efforts into an endless battle was counterproductive.

Final Takeaway

The Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation rightfully recommends “Jointly developing automated search and retrieval methodologies to cull relevant information”. As costs for getting to the facts escalate, a comprehensive strategy that uses the best processes, the best technology, and a commitment to the Cooperation Proclamation is essential for the legal system to deliver what people expect – justice based on facts. Gamesmanship as evidenced in Moody v. Turner is detrimental to this cause.

Ordering a “company-wide” search is not enough to shield outside counsel and client from a potentially embarrassing electronic discovery sanction allocation hearing in the Southern District of New York.

In In re A & M FLORIDA PROPERTIES II, the parties disputed the terms and obligations relevant to a purchase and sale agreement for property.  The plaintiff claimed the defendant failed to disclose information that would ultimately have the effect of increasing plaintiff’s purchase price. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff was fully informed of the transaction details and requested emails and other documents from plaintiff to prove plaintiff had knowledge of the details. During e-discovery, the plaintiff’s counsel made the following two costly errors that led to a potentially embarrassing sanction show down with his client:

1. Issuing a broad instruction to perform a “company-wide” search without more detailed instructions
2. Failure to communicate with key IT personnel and employees to understand the client’s retention policies and data systems

The plaintiff’s early productions raised red flags for the defendant because they did not include any internal emails or an email that had previously been exchanged between the parties.  In response, the plaintiff’s outside counsel ordered his client to conduct a “company-wide” search to straighten out the email production issues. The plaintiff’s Chief Technology Officer (CTO) was tasked with overseeing the search, but the search was limited to email in the “live” system and did not include employee archives that the CTO knew existed.  The plaintiff’s counsel later admitted that he did not know the difference between archives and live inboxes and the CTO claimed access to the archives would have been provided to the defendant if only she had been asked. Following multiple searches by a forensic examiner and months of delay, over 9,500 additional emails were eventually produced from the archives that were initially overlooked.

Judge Gonzalez refused to order dismissal or an adverse instruction since the evidence was eventually produced and there was no evidence of bad faith.  However, Judge Gonzalez showed little sympathy for counsel’s failure to “understand the technical depths to which electronic discovery can sometimes go” or to “gain a better understanding of GFI’s [defendant’s] computer system” and issued monetary sanctions to cover the cost of defendant’s attorney fees and forensic examiner.  To make matters worse, the judge also ordered a future hearing to determine how to allocate the cost of sanction between the plaintiff and their lawyers.

Can You Say Embarrassing?

This type of hearing tends to uncomfortably pit client and counsel against each other in a game of he said, she said.  This isn’t Qualcomm revisited where sanctions were in the millions and attorneys from top law firms were scrapping to keep their licenses to practice law.  Nonetheless, the stakes are always high when you’re dealing with sanctions.  I can hear the arguments now:

Outside Counsel:  “When I said ‘company-wide’ search I meant a ‘company-wide’ search!”

Client:  “Well, if you would have been more specific, I would have known to search the archives.  You’re the lawyer after all.  Haven’t you done this before?”

Only a few know the details of what actually transpired and getting into the blame game with your client is something most attorneys want to avoid.

Lessons Learned

The lessons learned in this case are many, but here are a few key points to consider for both law firms and the clients they represent:

• Counsel and corporate IT must over-communicate: at the onset of litigation lawyers and IT should caucus to discuss critical e-discovery items and communicate with each other throughout the entire e-discovery process to ensure risk items related to technology (or anything else) are identified and minimized.
• Senior corporate executives need to take e-discovery seriously: the risk of poorly executed e-discovery isn’t just an issue for the GC. These issues can expose other senior executives (the CTO in this case) to embarrassment and their companies to monetary sanctions.
• The duty to preserve ESI is broad and organizations should utilize the right technology solutions to minimize the risk of error: searching email servers and ignoring other sources where relevant files may exist can harm the business as well as the personal reputations.  Companies should leverage technology solutions that allow for automated and repeatable data collections from multiple data sources like servers and laptops/desktops simultaneously to reduce the risk of human error and sanctions.

Conclusion

In Re Florida A&M Properties II serves as yet another reminder that the bench in the Southern District of New York has little tolerance when practitioners fail to understand the intersection between law and technology.  Since other jurisdictions often look to decisions from the Southern District of New York as persuasive authority, lawyers in other jurisdictions should take note.

On April 1^st, we had some fun by revealing the magical properties of “Clearwell for the iPad.” In truth though, we were only half joking because, at the time, we actually had an application for the iPhone and the iPad in development.

As Clearwell’s user base grew, and we became a mission-critical application to so many people, we learned that our users want access to the product from anywhere, not just when at their desks. In particular, for Clearwell administrators, it’s a lot more convenient logging into cases or checking the status of processing on an iPhone than it is being tied to a computer. So we created this companion application for the iPhone and iPad so they could do just that, as well as view job details, email logs, and generally manage their Clearwell appliances while on the go.

The driving force behind this new application, which we call “iClearwell”, is one of our developers, Gim, who drove its development. Gim also created a video to explain exactly what iClearwell does, which you can see below (yes, it really is his voice – and his pulsating finger).

iClearwell is available for free at Apple’s App Store. I have it on my iPad, and it rocks!

Learn More On Litigation Software.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(D) The scope of discovery of the information;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learn More On: Frcp Electronic Discovery.

We’ve devoted a number of posts to the topic of ECA, ranging from a quest to define the acronym, all the way to the cost savings benefits of the ECA approach.  And, while there seems to be relative unanimity around the beneficial aspects of ECA, there still seem to be a number of myths and misconceptions.  So, ala the Mythbusters, we’ll run these myths through the gauntlet to see which survive scrutiny.

Myth #1: ECA Is Only Valuable if Performed “Early”

Certainly, ECA is best leveraged and will be most valuable when performed at the outset of litigation.  As has been stated before, it has value on two primary fronts, the first being the ability to scope electronic discovery (both in terms of cost and timelines).  The next is the more traditional value proposition where ECA is used to get an understanding of the case facts to enable the strategic decision making process.

As such, there are scenarios where an ECA methodology would still generate value even if performed “later” in the mater.  For instance, with bifurcated, class action litigation initial discovery about the class may occur months before discovery on the merits.  In this instance using a later ECA approach would still make sense since discovery about the case facts may not have been possible earlier on.  Similarly, “late” ECA may still hold value when new parties or claims are added to an existing lawsuit, or when there’s a substantial change in case direction, data, or custodians.

Myth #2: ECA Is Only Performed With Technology

Sure, enterprise grade ECA products  are an important part of the mix, but the products won’t perform an ECA by themselves.  There’s just too much subjective decision making involved in the assessment process.   Therefore, the right people are critically important — not only in terms of experience performing this analytical work, but also in their ability to capably testify about the underlying decision making process.  It’s also important to be able to follow a repeatable and defensible processes to show that the “recipe” used was aligned with industry best practices and wasn’t ginned up for a particular engagement.

Myth #3: ECA Only Works With Large ESI Volumes

Yes, ECA methodologies makes a lot of sense for large, bet-the-company matters because even modest savings when processing, analyzing and reviewing terabytes will easily approach six to seven figures.  However, smaller matters will still benefit from better budgetary insights that facilitate informed matter management.  And, in a way there’s almost more benefit from being able to quickly evaluate (fight/settle) smaller suits since the transactional costs are so high relative to the amount in controversy.  In both scenarios it’s important to view objective case data to prepare for meet & confer conferences.

Myth #4: Clients Don’t Want To Pay for ECAs

Many end clients (corporate counsel typically) have a similar litigation mindset:  i.e., the desire to avoid costs for as long as possible.  While avoiding early costs makes some sense on its face, the fact is that spending a small amount of money early on (for budgetary and case assessment purposes) will in most instances reduce the overall litigation budget.  It’s the classic, “you can pay me now, or pay me later” situation.

Counsel must understand that while some costs are incurred early in the process the benefits are crystal clear: i.e., determining customized case strategies early in the matter to decide whether to fight or settle.  Similarly, corporate clients must recognize that the benefits outweigh the costs and require their litigation counsel to include this process in every significant matter.

This illustration highlights how an initial ECA investment actually pays for itself over the life of the litigation.

Myth #5: ECAs Begin when the Complaint is Filed

Many newbie ECA practitioners may think that the timing for an ECA approach would start when the complaint is filed.  And, while this isn’t patently ridiculous, I think the better approach is to begin the clock at the time litigation becomes “reasonably likely” — versus later dates such as when the complaint is filed or when discovery is propounded.  This trigger is also the same for trigger preservation obligations and a host of interrelated activities such as ESI “identification,” which makes the matter kick-off more synchronized.

For more information about ECA, watch a recording of our recent webinar — E-Discovery MythBusters: Debunking Common Myths About Early Case Assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe this will show my age, but I’ve been around the electronic discovery business since the days when pricing was both simple and very expensive. Terabytes were at the mythical high-end of the spectrum and gigabytes of “e-docs” (not “ESI”) cost $3,000 – $4,000 to process. Understandably (and fortunately for most), pricing models have evolved, thanks in part to more educated consumers and initiatives such as Sedona’s RFP + Vendor Panel.

Leaving the WABAC machine and moving into present times, we’ve starting to see some variance from traditional pricing models that primarily focus on data “into” the processing machine. More and more companies (such as Kroll Ontrack) are moving to models that price on data “out” of the process. Since that’s a bit nebulous, an example might illustrate:

Traditionally, in a somewhat simplified fashion, an electronic discovery project would be priced by the amount of data in the initial corpus (say 100 gigabytes) and processing would be priced at $500 a gigabyte (for round numbers purposes). Leaving out the sometimes significant caveat that the 100 gigabytes would likely increase due to expansion of compressed files, this would mean that the bulk of the project expenses would be $50,000 ($500 x 100), plus relatively nominal costs for monthly hosting and user access rights.

At the end of the day, after elimination of system files, deduplication and application of search terms (reducing the initial corpus by say 70% collectively) there would be 30 gigabytes remaining for hosting and possible production, both of which are most often priced separately.

Given rampant commoditization there’s an arms race underway among certain service providers where they’re now changing the above model to give away initial processing as a loss leader – pricing only on the data that comes out the end of the processing/search step. In this approach the above workflow would largely stay the same, but the vendor would charge a higher rate for what ultimately is hosted on the back-end. If this back-end fee was $2,000 per resulting gigabyte and the same 30 gigabytes was seen out the back end, then the customer would pay $60,000 for the project. But, if the deduplication, searching, culling, etc. was more effective (at say 80%) then the resulting 20 gigabytes would only cost $40,000.

The question then, as Clint Eastwood would put it, is: “Do you feel lucky?” This pricing model forces attorneys and litigation support managers to guesstimate what culling, search, and de-duplication rates they’ll likely get on the data corpus. Guess right and they save the end client money, guess wrong and they’re way over budget.

The dynamics of this purchasing decision are a bit atypical because the buyer (usually counsel) doesn’t pay the bills, so the decision can often be more vexing than most. When a direct consumer gambles on pricing things will ideally balance out over time, with money being saved in some instances and some being overspent in others. But, when the buyer doesn’t pay the bills the motivation is less clear.

Thoughts run to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to determine which pricing model is ultimately more compelling: (a) price certainty/adherence to budget, or (b) cost variability and the opportunity to save money. While it’s never good to understate the upside of saving money (Esteem), I think ultimately there’s a more fundamental need (Safety) to stay within budget and avoid the painful (sometimes client imperiling) call to discuss how a given e-discovery project has gone way over budget.

This calculation is made further vexing because it not only pits the purchasing party against unknown data culling/searching rates, but it also puts the vendor in an ethical bind where they make less money if they’re supremely effective at data reduction, whereas if they’re either intentionally or accidentally beneficiaries of relatively little data reduction then they stand to make a ton of upside.

It’s like you went to Vegas to gamble your kid’s college fund and on top of the already questionable house odds you knew that the dealer stood to profit by your losses. So, as for myself, no, I don’t feel lucky.