e-discovery 2.0

Recently, I attended a conference in Washington DC with a large number of government agencies, including (I must confess) many Clearwell customers like the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Veterans Administration. It will probably come as no surprise that, during our conversations, it became abundantly clear that they had substantial electronic discovery technology needs. Many were still reviewing PST files manually in Outlook; others were TIFFing millions of pages of documents prior to directly loading into a traditional review application for eyes-on review. That’s right, nary a trace of early case assessment, transparent search, or culling to be found.

Sadly, no news there. What was fascinating for us was the reaction to the latest release of the Clearwell E-Discovery Platform, Version 5.5. Version 5.5 contains significant new functionality, including dramatically increased performance and scalability along with a number of substantial processing, analysis, review, and production enhancements. But, in addition to these features, we have rolled out a set of e-discovery best practices templates designed to make it vastly easier for organizations to implement a formal e-discovery methodology that builds on the integrated nature of our platform. And it was the prospect of such a methodology, even more than the technology, that people were buzzing about at the summit.

Why? With all of the activity going on in the e-discovery space around product and technology innovation, there was some strong feedback that process and methodology may have gotten lost in the shuffle. And, if you think about it, it’s process and methodology that are likely to be most carefully assessed when the courts are considering the reasonableness (or lack thereof) of e-discovery for a case.

The importance of putting process and methodology front and center (along with a commitment to making the necessary organizational changes to make it happen) is not exactly a new concept. Ralph Losey has been talking about it for years over on his groundbreaking and irreverent e-discovery team blog, and it’s a frequent topic of keynote speakers on the e-discovery lecture circuit. However, like eating your vegetables or exercising, putting in place the right e-discovery process in an organization is something that people realize the benefit of, but still ignore.

This cannot continue, as the stakes are escalating. Take the recent case of Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Felman Prod., Inc. Dean will dive into this case in much greater detail in an upcoming post, but it is very relevant to the methodology versus technology discussion in that it highlights how a methodology problem can cause a fateful technology problem to be overlooked. In this case, a lack of sufficient quality control processes caused the plaintiff to inadvertently produce a number of privileged emails. The court found the inadvertent production was not “solely attributable” to a problem with a Concordance index, and that the plaintiff “failed to perform critical quality control sampling” to determine whether the production was appropriate. Privilege was waived.

What’s the solution? We believe that we’re on to something with Clearwell 5.5, in that we can, uniquely among e-discovery products, marry together methodology and technology in a single platform that allows for the entire e-discovery process to be documented and defended, end-to-end. We have particularly focused on the most critical part of the process which seems to come up over and over again in sanction and privilege waiver decisions, which is the way that an organization moves from an initial pool of documents to a set of defensibly-culled, potentially responsive documents, on through to tagging and production. Our unique workflow capabilities allow the entire process to be documented and instantly recalled with the click of a mouse, letting you see each decision that was made during the course of the case in a step-by-step fashion, and then to structure additional quality control audits on top of those decisions to ensure that every “i” is dotted and every “t” crossed.

It’s a good thing for everyone involved in litigation that e-discovery technology is maturing rapidly to the point where it can start to help solve these sorts of process problems rather than being the cause of them (as was the unfortunately case in Mt. Hawley). This is a major focus for us at Clearwell and you’ll see a lot more exciting news from us on this front over the next few months, so stay tuned!

In my last post, I discussed how the “black box” design of enterprise search engines makes it challenging to defensibly use keyword search in e-discovery and follow Judge Grimm’s guidance in Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2008 WL 2221841 (D. Md. May 29, 2008).  In Victor Stanley, Judge Grimm notes that because keyword search technology is prone to producing over- and under-inclusive results, attorneys using keyword search should adopt one of two approaches: either collaborate with the opposing party to agree on keyword search methodology, or utilize best practices that demonstrate they have taken reasonable measures to reduce over- and under-inclusiveness.  However, the black box search technologies that are used in e-discovery today make following this guidance difficult.  They can’t reduce under-inclusiveness without increasing over-inclusiveness.  And they make it expensive to utilize collaborative or best practices methodologies including testing, sampling, refining and documenting searches.  All of which begs an obvious question: what can be done to improve search for e-discovery?

In my opinion, the answer is simple: e-discovery search needs to become more transparent.  Instead of being forced to feed one search query at a time into a “black box” search engine and then getting results  with no idea how those results were generated, lawyers and litigation support professionals need technology that provides them with greater visibility into the search process. They need to understand how the results were obtained, so they can reduce both the over- and under-inclusiveness of keyword search, and easily follow Judge Grimm’s advice to improve the defensibility of their search methodology.

A transparent search solution should have four key elements:

1. Transparent query expansion.  Query expansion is the process by which search engines take the query that the user submitted and expand or convert it into a new and improved form.  Wildcard, stemming, concept and fuzzy searches all follow this query expansion process.  For example, the search “divers*,” would be expanded to search for all the words that start with “divers” in the data set, such as “diverse,” “diversity,” “diversion,” “diversification,” etc.  In transparent search, query expansion would be exposed to users, allowing them to include or exclude expanded keywords. To continue with the previous example, a user that is searching for documents related to diversity would then have the ability to exclude false positive expanded terms, such as “divers”, “diversion,” and “diversification” from the search.  Making query expansion transparent can significantly reduce the over-inclusiveness of keyword search.  It also makes it practical to use technologies, such as concept and fuzzy search, that have not been used to date because of their complexity and tendency to produce massively over-inclusive results.
2. Multiple query support. When a search contains multiple keyword queries, such as “hiring” and “interview,” transparent search should provide visibility into the results for each individual query as well as the combination of all the queries. For example, with the search “hiring OR interview,” users should have separate visibility into the results for “hiring” and “interview” as well as “hiring OR interview.”  They should know that out of the 100 documents that match “hiring OR interview”, only 5 match interview and 95 match hiring.  This kind of visibility is critical if you want to either collaborate or follow search testing, sampling, and refinement best practices when there are a large number of queries.
3. Rapid sampling. Transparent search should support the ability to rapidly sample the results from all of the individual queries, such as “hiring” and “interview”, contained within a search. It should also be easy to take a random sample of non-matching documents in order to assess whether one or more searches have identified as many of the relevant documents as possible.  As Judge Grimm states in Victor Stanley when assessing keyword searches used to find privileged documents, “The only prudent way to test the reliability of the keyword search is to perform some appropriate sampling of the documents determined to be privileged and those determined not to be in order to arrive at a comfort level that the categories are neither over-inclusive nor under-inclusive.”
4. Automated documentation. Transparent search technology needs to document all aspects of the search process including (but not limited to) any keyword that has been excluded during transparent query expansion, the combined results of a search containing multiple individual queries, and the results for each of the individual queries within that search.  Automatically documenting the search methodology used and the results obtained is critical so that users can “show their work” if their search methodology is ever called into question.

Benefits of Transparent Search

By addressing the main technology challenges of keyword search, transparent search provides significant benefits to attorneys and litigation support professionals using search for e-discovery. First, parties that adopt transparent search can improve the defensibility of their e-discovery search practices. By enabling iterative testing, sampling and refinement, transparent search allows users to adopt the approaches recommended by Judge Grimm when it was previously impractical to do so.  At the end of the day, this means less risk.

Second, the use of transparent search can substantially reduce downstream production and review costs by removing false positives. For example, it is not uncommon for certain wildcard searches to generate results where 20-40% of the included documents are false positives that can be removed by transparent query expansion.  This can result in thousands of dollars of savings on a single search query.

Finally, transparent search can dramatically reduce the time and cost required to complete the search and culling stage of e-discovery. Currently, it can take hundreds of hours to run a significant number of searches one at a time, document the results of each search, and sample and refine each individual query. With transparent search, running multiple queries and documenting each of the individual results takes minutes. Sampling each of the individual queries takes seconds.

When it comes to e-discovery search, it’s important to recognize that there are no “silver bullets.”  Search will remain an imperfect science with the possibility of over- and under-inclusive results.  But equally, there is no doubt that search remains the best solution for reducing the vast quantities of electronic information that are a part of every e-discovery process down to a reasonable level for human review. While attorneys and litigation support professionals can’t completely remove the imperfections of keyword search, they can, with transparent search, take action to minimize the impact of these imperfections and defensibly meet the requirements of new case law.  In doing so, they will be able to turn their attention to where it should be: the substance of the case.

Judge Paul Grimm’s recent opinion in Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2008 WL 2221841 (D. Md. May 29, 2008) provides valuable guidance on one of the most important issues in e-discovery: how to conduct keyword searches in a defensible manner given that keyword searches are prone to produce over- and under-inclusive results.  The ruling suggests one of two approaches: either producing parties should adopt a “collaborative” approach to conducting keyword searches, whereby each party agrees on a search methodology; or, they should use a “best practices” approach, such as the one suggested by Sedona, where the producing party tests, samples, and iteratively refines searches so that they can demonstrate they have taken reasonable measures to reduce over- and under-inclusive results.

While the guidance is clear, following the guidance in practice is very difficult.  The primary reason for this is that the search technology being used in e-discovery today is not up to the task.  Specifically, today’s search technology suffers from three problems:

1. The over- and under-inclusive tradeoff. Many technologies have been developed to address the tendency of keyword searches to miss relevant documents and produce under-inclusive results.  Wildcard and stemming technology has been developed in order to address the issue of finding common word variations in specified keywords.  Concept search has been designed to find documents containing words with similar meanings to the keywords in a search.  And fuzzy search technologies have been put in place to find misspellings of words. However, all of these suffer from the same problem: they produce too many non-relevant or “false positive” documents thus driving up the cost of review. For example, if someone runs the wildcard search “divers*”, then he or she not only gets the desired documents containing “diverse” and “diversity”, but also gets a large number of false positive documents containing “diversion”, “diversification”, and so on.  In the case of concept and fuzzy search, the problem is so great that these technologies to date have rarely been used in e-discovery.
2. Too expensive to test, sample and refine searches. Today’s search technologies are largely designed to run one search at a time, not the dozens of searches that are typical in e-discovery. As a result, anyone trying to follow the best practices of testing, sampling, and refining each search will find themselves missing deadlines and running over budget because it takes so long. This also makes collaboration with the opposing party close to impossible, since there’s little time to iterate on – and agree upon – a set of keyword searches.
3. Manual documentation. It’s not enough for producing parties to use best practices, they have to document them so that they can “show their work” to the court. Currently, documenting the search refinement process is mostly manual, with the result that it is either done inadequately or not at all.

The reason why the search technology used for e-discovery has these problems is surprisingly simple: it’s because the technology was not designed for e-discovery in the first place. Rather, it was built for enterprise search, and was only later repurposed towards e-discovery.

The “Black Box” Of Enterprise Search

The core issue is that enterprise search technology has been designed to be a “black box”. Users enter a single search query into one end, and get results at the other, with no visibility into what happens in between. Going back to our previous example, when a user searches for “divers*” intending to find documents related to “diversity” or “diverse”, enterprise search engines give the user no visibility into the crucial step of query expansion and how it expands the search query into relevant and non-relevant terms like “diversion” and “diversification”. As a result, the user has no ability to minimize the false positives.

In the same vein, when a user enters multiple queries into a “black box” enterprise search engine, all of the queries run as a single search, and the user has no visibility into which results are associated with which query. For example, a user that searches for “hiring OR interview” will get the results for the combination of the queries “hiring” and “interview”. He or she won’t know that only 5 of documents contained “hiring” while 100 documents contained “interview.”  This limitation makes analyzing, sampling and refining searches costly and time consuming.

That’s not say that enterprise search products like Autonomy or Endeca are flawed. Far from it.  Their “black box” design works exceedingly well for the simple and quick queries that people want to run across the enterprise for general business purposes. If a sales manager is looking for a single proposal for her meeting the following day, then she doesn’t care how the search was performed or if it’s over-inclusive.  She’s only interested in the first page of relevant results, and for that use case enterprise search engines do a great job.

But e-discovery is a whole different world.  In e-discovery, users typically must review every single document in the search results, not just the most relevant ones.  As a result, over-inclusive searches can dramatically increase the costs of downstream production and review.  And under-inclusive searches raise the issue of defensibility.  Finally, e-discovery users have to run a lot of search queries and understand which documents are associated with each of those queries.

So, going back to the original problem, if current search technologies cannot help lawyers and litigation support professionals follow Judge Grimm’s guidance and address the “well-known limitations” of keyword search, what can? That will be the subject of my next post.