e-discovery 2.0

Since I’ve finished off the last of the Halloween candy and tossed out the moldy, squirrel ravaged pumpkins, it occurred to me that now might be a good time to think about what 2010 will hold for the electronic discovery industry.  My 2009 list seems to have been fairly prescient and many of those notions still hold true since the legal industry (as we know) doesn’t move at the most blistering pace.

Again, doing my best Nostradamus impersonation, here are my top ten trends for 2010:

1. Early case assessment (ECA) moves from a “nice to have” to a “must have” requirement for any matter involving electronically stored information (ESI).  In 2009, we saw ECA move into the mainstream as a methodology to quickly understand case facts, assess risk and lower both review and data processing costs.  But, in 2010, with the advancement of the tools and the increased socialization within the bar and the litigation support community, ECA will graduate into a core methodology for savvy litigators regardless of matter type or size.
2. Appetites for broad information lifecycle management initiatives diminish as organizations realize these programs are far too complex to solve specific pain points, and they often take too much time (measured in years) to execute.  The economic reality is that these holistic, cross data, cross enterprise pipe dreams really can’t demonstrate the ROI that’s needed in today’s challenging economy.
3. Staffing roles continue to evolve with a newfound focus on project management. The role of an in-house e-discovery coordinator will emerge as more of a project management and analyst versus pure legal or IT. This shift will become increasingly necessary as e-discovery evolves from an ad-hoc fire drill to a standard business process that is repeatable, measurable, and defensible.
4. Data analytics and statistical methodologies gain traction to augment the type of subjective decision making approaches that have historically formed the backbone of the e-discovery search and review processes.  These objective methodologies have long been called on as best practices by the likes of the Sedona Working Group. In 2010, they now will start to move from theoretical to practical task as e-discovery tools increasingly move in-house and departments enhance defensibility and add elements such as sampling into the workflow.
5. Platform e-discovery solutions finally become a reality as customers finally graduate from painfully stitching point solutions together, thus requiring less physical document hand-offs (i.e., exports and imports) between applications, cutting costs and lowering the risk of data loss.
6. Associate-based review gradually goes extinct, as both clients and law firms tire of expensive, linear review processes.  More review work becomes either insourced or is managed with specialized contract attorneys, who are both cheaper and better trained for this type of work.
7. Similarly, FRE 502 and “clawback” agreements will be increasingly used to reduce the need for any manual, eyes-on review, although many litigators will resist this trend because of the fears of “un-ringing the bell” when privileged information is disclosed in any context.
8. While perhaps anathema, alternatives to the much lauded EDRM model will gain traction, as practitioners strive to find an even better, and perhaps more practical, project management framework, in many cases acknowledging the role that the EDRM has taken in forming *the* lingua franca of the e-discovery industry.
9. The push for cooperation in the e-discovery process, will make incremental progress despite reticence by old school litigators.  Increasingly, this type of cooperation, as strongly advocated by the Sedona Working Group, will be ironically forced by judges and local rules.
10. “Cloud” computing starts to really impact how e-discovery data preservation/collection is done, both in terms of social media and traditional ESI.  More and more companies block social media applications and file types in the workplace because of fears surrounding the inability to preserve and collect.

“Large storage vendor buys small electronic discovery software company to round-out broader corporate initiative.” That was the story in December 2007, when Seagate bought e-discovery company Metalincs for its i365 solution; and, it’s the same story today as EMC announced its acquisition of Kazeon for its SourceOne archiving solution. The terms of the EMC-Kazeon deal were not disclosed, but sources with knowledge of the transaction tell me that the acquisition price is approximately $75 million. That’s slightly less than what Seagate paid for Metalincs ($82 million), and less than what FTI Consulting paid for Attenex ($88 million). But it’s well within the usual range of $50-100 million that most acquirers pay for technology that has not yet matured into a business.

The deal will come as a relief to Kazeon’s long-suffering shareholders. The company was founded in 2003 and, over the past 6 years, it raised over $60 million in equity financing, double the amount it usually takes successful software companies to reach profitability. But despite all that investment, revenue has been hard to come by. According to former Kazeon employees, the company’s revenue totaled only $7 million over the past 12 months. Perhaps as a result, there’s been a lot of management turnover, and last year the board retained a recruiter to find a new CEO. In light of all that, selling the company for $75 million, or 10 times trailing revenue, is a great outcome for Kazeon’s shareholders. It also provides some level of job security for Kazeon’s employees, many of whom have been offered retention bonuses to stick around.

On the other side of the coin, the deal also makes sense for EMC, which needed to flesh out SourceOne, its recent re-branding of the Email Extender archive. In launching SourceOne in April 2009, EMC described it as an integrated portfolio of products: SourceOne Email Management for email archiving; Discovery Manager for legal holds of email; Celerra and Centera for storage; and Discovery Collector for identifying and collecting data from desktops and file shares. EMC owned all of those products except one: Discovery Collector, which instead was to come from EMC Select Partner, StoredIQ. It is widely known that EMC tried repeatedly to acquire StoredIQ but was rebuffed. So instead, it purchased Kazeon (i.e., the Kazeon Information Server) so that it now owns all aspects of SourceOne and does not have to rely on partners.

Will this eDiscovery deal be successful? We will have to wait and see, but Seagate’s experience is not encouraging. A year after it acquired Metalincs, Seagate laid off most of the staff and hired UBS to help it sell what was left of the electronic discovery company. There have not been any takers.

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.

Ask a European about e-discovery, or e-disclosure as it is called in the UK, and you will often be met with a look of distaste. Much like SUVs or obesity, electronic discovery is viewed as an unpleasant, uniquely American phenomenon. But, in reality, there are fat people in Paris, Range Rovers all over London, and a lot of electronic discovery happening all across Continental Europe – whether people like to admit it or not.

One reason for that is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). This US law, which has inspired similar legislation in other countries, prohibits companies from engaging in corruption, such as bribing government officials to win large contracts. That sounds simple enough, but it’s not always easy to do. For example, an American friend of mine runs a travel website in China. To advertise, he hired people to hand out flyers at all the major train stations. But after a few weeks, his employees began to get hassled by station officials who said they needed an official “permit”. So he did what anyone would do and paid the “permit fees” even though no paperwork for this “permit” was ever produced. When his US auditors looked at that, they immediately cried foul. He was then compelled to end the practice and bring in a law firm to conduct a full FCPA investigation. The result: lots of legal bills, no more advertising in train stations, and a more powerful Chinese-run competitor who has no such qualms about paying “permit fees”.

In speaking to Daniel Dorsky, Tyco’s Compliance Counsel and an expert in FCPA issues, I discovered that my friend’s experience is no longer the exception. From what Daniel described, enforcement of the FCPA has been stepped up dramatically in the past couple of years. Apparently, 2007 was the watershed. Prior to that, no one really worried about the FCPA too much. But two years ago, the Department of Justice (DoJ) under Mark Mendelsohn, began to take a different approach. First, the fines became much stiffer as, for example, Baker Hughes got hit with a $44 million penalty, by far the largest ever at the time. Second, the DoJ started to prosecute executives personally, bringing 15 criminal cases against individuals. Nothing focuses the mind like the threat of jail time, and FCPA compliance suddenly took on greater urgency.

The number of FCPA enforcement actions continued to increase in 2008, most notably with the infamous Siemens case. By the time the dust settled, the CEO of Siemens had been fired and the company was reeling from a $1.4 billion fine. Nor do things look like they are slowing down in 2009. In the first few months of this year, ABB took an $800 million accounting reserve for FCPA issues, Halliburton got fined $177 million, KBR $502 million, and the KBR CEO, Albert Stanley, got 7 years in jail to go along with his $11 million personal fine. These companies are also now vulnerable to civil suits. While there’s no private right of action under the FCPA, that does not stop securities fraud class actions or shareholder lawsuits, which charge that defendants either understated the risks or overstated the controls in their disclosures.

There are a number of reasons why FCPA enforcement actions will likely increase further in the coming months and years. The FBI recently created an FCPA taskforce of 8-12 agents, bringing all the standard law enforcement tools to FCPA compliance (e.g., wire-taps, subpoenas, informants, warrants, etc.). Many other countries are starting to enforce similar laws, with much encouragement from the US which does not want to see American businesses disadvantaged by doing the right thing. And international law enforcement agencies are cooperating more than ever before. For example, last summer in Paris, international agencies held their first FCPA conference to share information.

All of this is driving a boom in e-discovery as General Counsels and Compliance Officers regularly conduct investigations of their overseas subsidiaries to ensure FCPA compliance. These investigations often center on “red flag” countries like China, Brazil, or Russia, where compliance is most difficult. They almost always involve outside counsel, and require the processing, analysis and review of large volumes of electronic information. This applies to European companies as much as it does to American ones. Non-US nationals can be prosecuted if either communications or money goes via the US, and many European countries are following the DoJ’s lead (e.g., $600 million of Siemens’ $1.4 billion fine came from German authorities).

So no matter how Europeans feel about e-discovery, or e-disclosure, they will be doing more of it in the coming years, much like their American counterparts. It’s fair to say that, in this domain, as perhaps in others, Europeans and Americans have much more in common than they might think.

Over the past 4 years, I have had hundreds of conversations with corporate counsel and “legal IT”, meaning technical folks charged with supporting the legal team. More and more of them are looking to lower their costs by bringing e-discovery in-house. But as they work through that process, there’s one question that consistently comes up, even today – namely, “When [insert name of software company] says they “do” e-discovery, what exactly does that mean?”

There has been progress towards answering this question, thanks mainly to the analyst community. George Socha and Tom Gelbmann’s EDRM framework has been immensely helpful in breaking down electronic discovery into its component steps. Other analysts, like Debra Logan at Gartner, were quick to embrace the framework, prompting every software provider to follow suit. As a result, there is today a common language that everyone uses to describe the e-discovery process.

The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) breaks down the e-discovery process into a series of steps. Companies looking to buy e-discovery software to lower costs typically map different software products to each of these steps, to make sure that they cover the entire process.

But having a universally-agreed framework is only half the answer. To eliminate customer confusion, there also needs to be agreement on how different software products fit into the framework. This is especially important since there is no single, end-to-end solution for e-discovery which covers all aspects of EDRM. So customers are forced to think about how different software solutions fit together. And that is where things begin to fall apart.

Many software vendors feel it is advantageous to claim that they do everything, even though they do not. Customers are rightly suspicious of those claims, and so press vendors to provide more detailed information – hence the question, “when you say you do e-discovery, what exactly does that mean?”

In light of that, how can litigation support teams, corporate counsel, or legal IT people figure out which e-discovery solution best meets their needs? From observing this decision-making process hundreds of times, I have found 3 simple steps are incredibly helpful.

Step 1: Read the analyst reports

Two reports in particular make for required reading. One is Gartner’s MarketScope Report, which is available for free at certain sites; the other is the 451Group’s recent e-discovery report, which is summarized in a publicly available presentation. The helpful thing about the 451 Group’s report is that it tells you which software companies do which parts of the EDRM process. You do have to buy the report to get the full picture (it’s well worth it!), but the publicly available presentation will give you a flavor for their analyis, and I have drawn from that presentation in the figure below:

Analyst firms like the 451 Group map software vendors to the EDRM framework according to what they actually do, which is often different from what software vendors claim they do.

The 451 Group’s analysis highlights several important points. First, it shows that there is no single end-to-end solution. Even the products of giants like EMC (SourceOne), HP (IAP), and IBM (CommonStore) only solve one piece of the puzzle, information management. Second, it shows that customers have choices at each stage of the EDRM process. For example, to solve the problem of identification, collection, and preservation of electronic information, customers can choose from solutions as diverse as Guidance EnCase (forensic collection), Index Engines (back-up tapes) and Mimosa NearPoint (email archive). Third, it provides an independent assessment of what vendors do, as opposed to what they may claim. For example, Kazeon claims analysis and review capabilities, whereas the report shows its product does identification, collection, and preservation; Recommind claims its Axcelerate eDiscovery and MindServer products do processing, whereas the report finds that they do not.

Step 2: Evaluate the products prior to purchase

Just as anyone would test-drive a car prior to purchase, it’s critical to test-drive e-discovery software. Any vendor should be willing to provide their software free of charge for an evaluation on-premise. The most effective evaluations are when the customer uses the product themselves, either on a live case or test data. This is far preferable to just sending the data to the vendor who then loads it into their system, as in that scenario there are too many opportunities for the vendor to hide their product’s shortcomings.

Step 3: Check references carefully

The trick with references is to insist on relevant references. It’s not good enough for the vendor to dredge up some random person who says nice things; or even a credible knowledgeable person who is using the product in a completely different way. For example, if a company is happy with Autonomy’s IDOL for enterprise search, that does not tell you much about what Autonomy might be like for e-discovery. What really counts are references from other customers who are using the product for the same application that you are.

All this can sound like a lot of work, but I have seen people go through the process in as little as a month, and be much happier for it. A little work up front can save a lot of time (and heart-ache!) later on.

At LegalTech New York there was still considerable discussion about ECA, which I of course assumed meant early case assessment.  And, while I have a good idea of what ECA means in the practice of electronic discovery, it struck me that many electronic discovery vendors were making up definitions to suit their own needs.  So, in a search for the one true meaning I began my search in earnest.

First, I went to Wikipedia.  Apparently ECA can stand for a whole host of things, including:

• Evangelical Christian Academy, a school for missionary children in Madrid
• Entertainment Consumers Association, an entity representing American game consumers
• European Cockpit Association, the representative body of 34 national flight crew associations in Europe

After a brief diversion into the mandate of the European Cockpit Association I decided that Wikipedia wasn’t the answer. Then I came across a pretty illustrative post from the Settlement Perspectives blog. There, the author struggles with the same quest and ultimately concludes that an early case assessment is a “disciplined, proactive case management approach designed to assemble, within 60 days, enough of the facts, law, and other information relevant to a dispute to evaluate the matter, to develop a litigation strategy, and to formulate a settlement plan if appropriate.”

What’s interesting about this definition is how important *early* is to a successful ECA.  While it seems both obvious and axiomatic, doing this process within 60 days seems to hold some of the secret sauce.  According to Schering-Plough’s VP of Litigation and Conflicts Management: “in 60 days…  you will know 80 percent of what you will ever know about a case.”

While this 60 day window initially seems reasonable, I’d wager that the timeline can be exponentially more aggressive, especially for practitioners leveraging next generation search and analytical tools…

As an example, let’s assume a fairly broad collection of relevant electronically stored information (ESI) where counsel wisely iterates on their search strategy to divine 80 percent of the significant case facts. This process could and should occur with 60 hours, much less 60 days. Not only is this compressed time frame dramatic in terms of moving the window from two months down to one week, but in reality an ECA needs to be done this quickly in order to facilitate preparation for the newly accelerated meet & confer conferences, as well as providing counsel with the insights to develop a settlement posture before the parties have become entrenched for expensive and protracted litigation.

We live in a time where information is now presumed to be instantly available.  While perception isn’t quite yet reality, it’s incumbent upon modern litigants to have real case data available within days, if not hours, from the inception of litigation.  Since the opposition probably has a significant jump start on the facts (since they filed the lawsuit), the defendant doesn’t have the luxury of taking two months to determine 80% of the relevant facts.

“Unless I’m wrong, and I’m never wrong…” this means that counsel should be conducting ECAs in nearly every case.  It should be “must have” instead of a nice to have. However, anecdotal evidence suggestions that ECAs aren’t performed routinely today.  The question is why?

Aside from the educational component and the use of old school, brute force review methodologies, the answer may lie in a common litigation mindset:  i.e., the desire to avoid costs for as long as possible.  Even in the Settlement Perspective piece the author admits to this mindset:  “I would prefer to avoid ‘all the major work’ on a case if I can.”  While he doesn’t seem to lump data analytics into this camp, this pervasive notion is still readily apparent.

In order to make the sea change where ECA is a standard operating procedure in every matter, 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.  Failure to do so merely widens the rapidly growing information gap, leads to uniformed case decisions and heightens confusion with the European Cockpit Association.

In today’s economy, controlling electronic discovery costs has taken on a new urgency.  Because the financials of many companies have deteriorated so quickly, there is great interest in finding methods to reduce any costs in the short-term.  As  a result, anyone in a company’s IT or legal department that comes up with a plan to substantially reduce their company’s electronic discovery costs in the short-term is likely to become a hero in their company.  So, what’s the best way to reduce electronic discovery costs quickly?

A natural first step is to decide where to focus.  Which electronic discovery activities are the most costly today?  Which have the greatest room for cost reductions?  The EDRM model serves as a good guide for answering such questions by breaking electronic discovery activities into Information Management, Identification, Collection, Preservation, Processing, Analysis, Review, Production and Presentation.  One thing I have noticed when interacting with enterprises is that the IT and legal departments tend to focus on different stages within electronic discovery based on their perspective.  IT managers naturally concentrate on the information management, identification, collection and preservation activities because these are the activities in which they are most involved.  Similarly, legal managers naturally look to preservation, processing, production and review.

Given these different perspectives, it’s important to take an objective approach to calculating electronic discovery costs.  Doing so is not that easy.  Costs can vary significantly depending on each company, the nature of the case, nature of the data, which vendors/technologies that are used and a variety of other factors.  Costs also come in many different forms: direct hard dollar costs, such as spending on legal and electronic discovery fees delivered by third parties; indirect hard dollar costs, such as time spent by company employees; and soft dollar costs, such as increased risk that could lead to adverse judgments and sanctions.  Finally, electronic discovery costs are often buried across both legal operating budgets and IT budgets making it hard to separate these costs from the costs of other activities.

Undertaking an internal analysis to understand your company’s electronic discovery costs is a valuable activity if you want to better control these costs.  However, while costs do vary between companies, most companies will find that the same activities contribute the most direct hard dollar costs and that these are the costs that are easiest to control in the short-term.  To demonstrate this, let’s walk through a generic cost analysis of a typical case.  Fortunately, we don’t have to start from scratch in doing this.  Leonard Deutchman, an author of several excellent electronic discovery articles, has already done most of the work in a May 2007 article, “Get Ready for the Rules Changes, Part VIII“.  In this article, Mr. Deutchman walks the reader through a hypothetical litigation between an Investor and a Venture Capital firm.  He describes the typical electronic discovery activities and calculates the direct hard dollar costs for these activities including:

• Collection: Mr. Deutchman calculates that it costs $10k to collect 400GB from 8 hard drives and the data of 8 custodians on file and email servers using an outside vendor (doing it in-house can be less expensive).  Note that this excludes any collection from back-up tapes, which can be more costly.
• Culling & Processing: it costs $4k to reduce the 400GB to 90GB by removing non-relevant file types prior to processing.  Processing 90GB costs $90k at $1000/GB.  De-duplication and the application of search terms reduce the data to 25GB.
• Production: it costs $4k to produce the 4GB of data that is deemed responsive and not privileged to produce to the other side.

Mr. Deutchman doesn’t identify direct hard dollar costs for Information Management, Identification or Preservation.  These activities are typically not associated with direct hard dollar costs on a per matter basis.  Rather, they involve indirect hard dollar costs such as employee time and software licenses.  Mr. Deutchman also does not provide an estimate for the costs of review.  However, since review does contribute significant direct hard dollar costs for every matter, this gap needs to be filled in order to get a complete sense of the direct hard dollar costs.  The two big buckets of cost in review are: attorney review costs and review software costs.  In Mr. Deutchman’s hypothetical litigation one might imagine the following scenario for these costs:

• 25GB translates into 195,000 documents using the low end of the documents per GB email (9,000/GB) and documents per GB files (7,000/GB). Industry survey data that is available from EDRM.  This example assumes that 40% of the 25 GBs is email.
• The attorneys reviewing the data charge $75/hour and make 100 document decisions per hour.  This translates to approximately $146,000.
• The hosted review service costs $50/GB/month and, in this case, let’s assume we host it for 6 paid months.  This costs $7,500.

If we tabulate these costs and calculate the direct hard dollar cost shares for each stage, the clear take-away is that Processing and Review costs comprise the vast majority of direct hard dollar costs.  Collection and Production direct hard dollar costs are significantly smaller in comparison.

Now, it’s possible to come up with many arguments for why Mr. Deutchman or my estimates could be high including different assumptions for attorney hourly review costs, higher document decision rates, cheaper vendor pricing, etc.  Similarly, it’s possible to come up with many arguments for why the estimates could be low including the need to perform multiple review passes, slower document decision rates, more expensive vendor charges, etc.  In addition, each company will have their own unique circumstances that will change this picture.  However, this generic analysis strongly suggests that more customized analyses would come to the same conclusion: if you want to reduce electronic discovery costs quickly, then you need to focus on processing and review costs.  One can also imagine that even if you were to use some form of activity-based costing to allocate indirect hard dollar costs on a per matter basis, it would likely not change the importance of Processing and Review costs.

What does this mean for IT and legal managers in Corporations?  These kinds of analyses make it pretty clear that, even though they are more involved in the Information Management, Identification, and Collection phase of electronic discovery, IT managers need to focus more on helping the legal team optimize Processing and Review activities.  You are not going to get the biggest bang for your buck in the short-term by trying to reduce costs in Information Management, Identification, Preservation, and Collection.  Similarly, legal managers need to work more closely with IT in order to focus on how to reduce processing and review costs.

So, the obvious question coming out of such an analysis is what’s the best way to reduce Processing and Review costs?  We’ll discuss this issue in a future post.

In the meantime, tell me what you think by participating in our first e-discovery 2.0 poll.  See the sidebar here: Which Phase of Electronic Discovery Do You Think is the Most Costly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my last post, I started a discussion on the myths surrounding concept search.  The first myth I dispelled was the “concept search is concept search” myth.  The myth is that there is an agreed upon definition of concept search.  In actuality, when people in e-discovery use the term concept search, they don’t always mean the same thing.  Frequently they are not actually talking about concept search technology at all and are actually talking about concept or content categorization technology, which is very different.  The second myth that needs dispelling is that concept search is better than keyword search.

The thinking behind this myth goes something like this:

Keyword search has a lot of problems.  It is prone to being over-inclusive, i.e., finding some non-relevant documents, and under-inclusive, i.e., not finding some relevant documents.  Concept search technologies are new and interesting and using these technologies you can find documents that keyword search can’t find.  Therefore, concept search must be better than keyword search.

Let’s examine this thinking.  The first two statements are accurate.  Keyword search is not perfect and can produce over- and under-inclusive results.  And concept search and content categorization technologies can both help identify documents that keyword search technologies might not find.  However, the conclusion that concept search is better than keyword search is not valid and doesn’t follow from these two statements.  Why?

In order to answer this question, we first need to go back to the difference between concept search and content categorization. Because these are different technologies, we really need to separately compare concept search versus keyword search and content categorization versus keyword search.  Let’s start with content categorization and keyword search.

The issue with this comparison is that keyword search and content categorization do different things.  Keyword search can be used in many ways in e-discovery.  The two most common are: (1) analysis or case assessment: finding the hot documents and understanding the matter by determining who knew what, when, how and why, etc., and (2) culling: removing non-responsive documents and/or identifying potentially privileged documents in order to reduce a large, starting set of documents to a smaller set before review.

Content categorization, on the other hand, has historically been used within the review phase of e-discovery.  Categorization can help reviewers to better understand the documents they are reviewing and thus potentially increase the speed of review.  Practitioners with whom I have worked also find that categorization can be useful during analysis by helping to understand a matter and identify potentially important keywords.

However, content categorization has not been used as part of culling.  First, culling needs to be transparent.  You need to be able to get agreement with or at least explain to the opposing side and the court exactly how you have culled the data set.  If you cull based on categories of documents that have been generated by a proprietary, black-box algorithm, it’s going to be difficult to gain agreement on or explain your culling methodology.  This is why the typical method of culling is still to use keyword search and either agree on the set of search terms with the opposing side or to use e-discovery search best practices to perform keyword searches on your own.

Second, content categorization has its own issues when it comes to being over- and under-inclusive.  There is no guarantee that your group of documents that have been categorized as being related to, for example, a company’s hiring policies include all of the documents in your matter related to hiring policies or that they do not include some documents that may not really be related to hiring policies.  Content categorization, like keyword search and virtually every information retrieval technology, is not perfect.

So what about concept search technology?  Surely, concept search technology is better than old, boring keyword search.  Well, actually it’s not that clear-cut.  The problem with concept search technology is that while it might find more relevant documents than plain keyword search, it will also likely find more false positives.  Imagine searching for documents containing “terminate” in an employment matter and your concept search technology automatically searching for “fire”, “dismiss”, etc. as well.  You’ll find more documents related to the termination of employees, but you’ll also find a lot more non-relevant documents concerning house fires, the fire department, etc.

So concept search can help address the under-inclusive problem with keyword search, (though it won’t solve it) and can be helpful during analysis.  But it can often increase the over-inclusive problem.  In addition, today’s concept search technologies share the transparency problem with concept categorization.  These technologies have largely been designed as “black boxes”, which as I have discussed in the past, makes sense for Enterprise search but not for e-discovery search, and, as a result, could also be potentially difficult to explain and defend.   For these reasons, concept search technology isn’t used very much in e-discovery today.  In order for its use to become widespread, it will need to become more transparent.  But that’s a topic for another day.

The bottom line here is that despite all the hype, concept search and content categorization technologies do not solve all the challenges of e-discovery search.  Both of these technologies can be very useful and the technology behind them is always improving.  However, as most of the experienced practitioners I work with already know, these technologies are generally better thought of as supplements to keyword search, not replacements.  The important question is not whether to use one technology over the other but which technology is best suited to your objectives and how best to use all the available technologies to achieve the desired goal.