Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

eDiscovery Best Practices: Tips for Saving Money in Litigation
 

A recent article on The National Law Journal (entitled Top 12 tips for saving money in litigation, authored by Damon W.D. Wright) had some good tips for – you guessed it – saving money during litigation.  I thought it would be worth discussing some of these, especially those that relate to eDiscovery cost savings practices.

  1. Conduct targeted preservation and collection: As the author notes, the duty to preserve is “not supposed to cause business operations to grind to a halt” and “the focus should be on the specific subject matter, evidence and likely witnesses in the case”.  If you promptly investigate and quickly identify those likely custodians and act to preserve their data, you’re probably satisfying your duty to preserve.  Just don’t lose sight of organization-wide processes that affect those likely witnesses, such as automated deletion policies, and suspend them for those witnesses, at least.  Don’t make the same mistake that EchoStar did.
  2. Calibrate the budget to the amount and importance of the case:  Ralph Losey, in his interview with eDiscovery Daily, spoke about bottom line proportional review and the idea of setting a budget based on the size and potential exposure of each case.  It simply doesn’t make sense to spend the same amount of effort in routine cases as it does for the “bet your company on the outcome” cases.
  3. File in a fast-moving court: Or pursue transfer if you’re the defendant.  Certainly, the longer a case drags out, the more expensive it is, and that includes for eDiscovery.
  4. Know the court: The author addresses this from a general perspective, but it could be important from an eDiscovery perspective, as a part of that.  Enough case law related to eDiscovery exists now that many judges have started to establish at least some track record with regard to issues such as spoliation, proportionality and sharing of eDiscovery costs.  It’s important to know how your judge views those issues.
  5. Have a key client liaison: Nobody knows the client better than the client themselves, so identifying the right person to serve as a liaison between the client and counsel can not only improve communications, but also streamline process and save costs.  As the author noted, the ideal client liaison will “know the organization well and have the authority, perseverance and communication skill needed to get the attention of others.”
  6. Select vendors and experts with care: The author notes that “you should always obtain price estimates (comparing ‘apples to apples’)” when considering eDiscovery vendors.  As a part of that, it’s important to make sure those comparisons are truly “apples to apples” and comprehensive.  Are per GB processing charges for the original (compressed) GB size or expanded?  Do hosting charges include per user fees or other ancillary charges or are they strictly per GB?  It’s important to make sure those distinctions are clear when comparing. 
  7. Try to get along with opposing counsel: While some are easier to get along with than others, the ability to cooperate with opposing counsel and discuss various discovery issues in the Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) conference (such as limits to discovery, form of production, privilege, etc.) will save considerable costs up front if the parties can agree.
  8. Allow opposing counsel to inspect and copy documents at their expense: Although most collections are predominantly in electronic form, there are still paper documents to be addressed and if you can make a non-privileged collection available for them to go through and select and copy the documents they want, that saves on your production costs.
  9. Limit e-mail production by custodians, search terms and date range: As the author noted and eDiscovery Daily previously noted, it’s not only a good idea for producing parties to limit production scope, but model orders to limit scope in patent cases are now being adopted in various jurisdictions, including Texas.
  10. Seek agreement on a narrowed privilege log and a no-waiver order: If you’re successful in #7 above, this should be part of what you try to negotiate.  It helps if both parties have similar concerns regarding the effort and cost to determine privilege and prepare a privilege log.
  11. Pursue cost-shifting for discovery: As yesterday’s post reflects, courts are more often expecting requesting parties to share in the discovery costs when the requests for information result in an undue burden or cost for the producing party.  And, as the author noted, the model order establishes specific parameters for patent cases and the expectation for requesting parties to pay for additional discovery.
  12. Stipulate to facts not in dispute: Why conduct discovery on facts not in dispute?  The author’s recommendation for early stipulations is a great idea for eliminating discovery in areas where it’s not necessary.

So, what do you think?  Did you get some good ideas?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Daily will resume with new posts on Tuesday after the Easter holiday.  Have an eggs-cellent weekend!

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Case Law: Tennessee Court Orders Split eDiscovery Costs, Plaintiff Bond for Additional Discovery
 

In considering the allocation of costs in this contentious business dispute, Tennessee Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown (not to be confused with TV’s Judge Joe Brown) ordered the parties to split the expenses related to material they had not already produced in Lubber Inc. v. Optari, LLC, No. 3:11-0042, (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 15, 2012).

The defendants asked the court to enter a protective order that did not require them to search for electronically stored information (ESI) outside the set period of October 4, 2010 through February 8, 2011; in the alternative, they asked the court to require the plaintiff to pay for the costs of the discovery. The defendants complained that the costs of the additional searches the plaintiff requested might “run at least $10,000 and produce gigabytes of ESI material.”

Judge Brown observed that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) allows for “a great deal of latitude in controlling discovery.” He also noted that the general rule of discovery is that the producing party bears the costs of discovery. Even so, Judge Brown continued by offering the following commentary on discovery costs:

“One of the concerns of discovery is the allocation of costs. In general, costs are borne by the producing party. While this works in the vast majority of cases, the requesting parties have little incentive not to ask for everything possible. This leads to interrogatories and requests for production that are expressed in the broadest possible terms.

It is the Magistrate Judge’s experience and the view of a number of economists who have studied this issue that where the requesting party bears a part of the cost of producing what they request, the amount of material requested drops significantly. When a party has to contemplate whether the last possible bit of information will cost them more than it is worth, they quit asking for items of marginal relevance. As long as requesting the last bit of information costs them nothing they have little, if any, incentive not to request it. Even if they choose never to look at it, they have put the opposing party to the cost of production. In some cases discovery becomes a tool with which to bludgeon the other side into submission. The Magistrate Judge believes that both sides are doing that in this case.”

Judge Brown denied the defendants’ motion and required each party to bear one-half of the costs of producing materials going forward.

So, what do you think?  Was the ruling to share discovery costs and the bond for compelling discovery appropriate?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Case Law: Two Pages Inadvertently Disclosed Out of Two Million May Still Waive Privilege
 

In Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., 11 Civ. 0160 (JMO) (THK), Magistrate Judge Theodore Katz of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York found that a privileged, two-page email that was inadvertently produced did not have to be returned and that the privilege had been waived because the producing party, Duane Reade, had failed to request its return in a timely manner.  According to Defendants' counsel, the ESI production involved the review of over two million documents in less than a month; that review was accomplished with the assistance of an outside vendor and document review team.

The Plaintiffs in this matter are Assistant Store Managers pursuing a collective action for overtime wages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), against the Defendant, Duane Reade.  The email that was inadvertently produced (on November 8, 2011 and subsequently used in deposition) related to a meeting among several individuals within Human Resources, including an in-house attorney at Duane Reade (assumed to be Julie Ko). The defendants discovered the inadvertent production on January 17 of this year when Duane Reade’s HR Manager (an attendee at the meeting) was noticed for deposition.  The defendants argued that the email was inadvertently produced because it was neither from nor to an attorney, and only included advice received at a meeting from an in-house attorney, identified in the email only by the first name “Julie.”

With regard to whether the email was privileged, the court examined the email and found that the first half, where Ko received information from business managers and, in her role as legal counsel, gave legal advice on the requirements of the FLSA, was privileged.  However, the second half of the email, consisting of proposals that came out of the meeting, to get the Store Managers and Assistant Store Managers to view and treat the ASM's as managers, contained no legal advice and, therefore, was not privileged.

As to whether the Defendant’s waived attorney-client privilege when inadvertently producing the email, the Court referenced a summary of the law in this subject provided by Judge Shira Scheindlin, as follows:

“Although the federal courts have differed as to the legal consequences of a party's inadvertent disclosure of privileged information, the general consensus in this district is that the disclosing party may demonstrate, in appropriate circumstances, that such production does not constitute a waiver of the privilege or work-product immunity and that it is entitled to the return of the mistakenly produced documents. In determining whether an inadvertent disclosure waives privilege, courts in the Second Circuit have adopted a middle of the road approach. Under this flexible test, courts are called on to balance the following factors: (1) the reasonableness of the precautions to prevent inadvertent disclosure; (2) the time taken to rectify the error; (3) "the scope of the discovery;" (4) the extent of the disclosure; and (5) an over[arching] issue of fairness.”

The Court ruled that the production of the email was inadvertent and that Duane Reade had employed reasonable precautions to prevent inadvertent disclosures (such as drafting lists of attorney names, employing search filters and quality control reviews). However, given the over two month time frame for the Defendants to request return of the email, the Court determined that the privilege was waived because the Defendants did not act “promptly to rectify the disclosure of the privileged email.”

So, what do you think?  Was waiver of privilege fair for this document?  Or should the Defendants have been able to claw it back?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Trends: What Do Investment Bankers Think About the eDiscovery Industry?

We’ve published a few studies and surveys regarding the state of the eDiscovery industry, including this one from last week and this one from last fall.  Another industry review was published just last month by VRA Partners, an investment banking firm based in Atlanta, GA.

After a brief summary, the industry review, available here, begins with a brief overview of the eDiscovery process (at least Identification through Production) for newbies to eDiscovery.  The next section discusses market size and growth, citing numbers from the Socha-Gelbmann surveys and also from eDG Journal.  If you haven’t seen these numbers published previously, they’re rather eye-opening, including:

  • The eDiscovery industry is currently anywhere from $3 billion to $5 billion, based on numbers from Socha Consulting and eDG Journal.
  • The eDiscovery industry grew at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 56.3% from 2002 to 2008 and a 34.4% CAGR from 2002 to 2010 (based on information from the 2009 and 2010 Socha-Gelbmann Surveys).
  • The EDD market has increased more than ten-fold since 2002 from $0.3 billion to $3.2 billion in 2010.
  • As of 2009, the worldwide legal market was $546.8 billion, 47.6% of which is accounted for within the USA.
  • US legal spend grew at a CAGR of 4.1% from 1998 to 2011, from $166 billion to $281 billion.

Reasons given for the continued growth of the eDiscovery market included resistance to recession in the legal market, increased adoption of eDiscovery (partially through required compliance with the Federal Rules changes adopted in December 2006), increased regulation and the part that EDD plays in that process and dramatic growth of electronic data in the world.  With regard to data growth, the review quotes a 57.6% CAGR (from IDC) from 2006 to 2010.  An even more eye-opening figure (not in the study, but also from IDC) is that since 2002, data in the world has grown from 5 exabytes to 1,800 exabytes (or approximately 1.8 zettabytes) – a 36,000% increase in nine years!  It is currently accepted that data in the world is doubling every 1.5 to 2 years.

The review then proceeds to discuss some of the current industry trends, including an increased focus on managing costs, growing focus of corporations to manage eDiscovery more closely (instead of delegating to the law firms) and new technologies (such as clustering and predictive coding).  Other trends noted include an increased sophistication of customers, a focus on process improvement by efficient providers for improved economics and the growth of eDiscovery outsourcing.

The review also includes a look at the market from a provider standpoint, breaking the 600 providers into two halves: the top 30 which comprise a little over 50% of the total market, with the rest comprised of smaller regional and local providers.  It finishes with a look at Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) and Capital Markets Activity, including a one-page summary of the recent acquisitions in the industry (more than you might think or remember, I bet there’s at least one that most of you didn’t know about).

It’s an interesting perspective from an interesting source.

So, what do you think?  Are you surprised by any of the numbers or the recent acquisitions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Trends: Delaware Has a New Standard for eDiscovery
 

On Dec. 8 of last year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware revised the "Default Standard for Discovery, Including Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (ESI)" for the third time to reflect recent changes in technology and to address concerns of attorneys regarding the discovery of ESI.  The new Default Standard expects the parties to reach agreements cooperatively on how to conduct discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26-36. If the parties are unable to agree on the parameters and/or timing of discovery, the default standards will apply until further order of the Court or the parties reach agreement (which is why it’s a default standard).

The Revised Default Standard addresses several provisions for conducting discovery of ESI, including:

  • Proportionality: Parties are expected to preserve, identify and produce relevant information in a proportional manner.
  • Preservation: Each party’s normal policies and procedures in place for the preservation and backup of information will not be altered unless the party requesting the information provides good cause and that information current when the request is made must be preserved by the producing party. The preservation requirement doesn’t extend to data only discoverable by forensics, voice mails, information stored on mobile devices, RAM, and data from obsolete systems.
  • Privilege: The parties are expected to confer on the nature and scope of privilege logs for the case, including whether categories of information may be excluded from any logging requirements and whether alternatives to document-by-document logs can be exchanged.
  • Initial Discovery Conference: The new Default Standard provides guidelines for the timing (before the "Rule 16 Conference”) and content (issues, sources of potentially relevant ESI, production formats, handling of privileged information, categories of ESI to preserve, etc.) of the Initial Discovery Conference.
  • Initial Disclosures: Within 30 days after the Rule 16 Conference, each party is required to disclose a ranked list of the 10 custodians most likely to have discoverable information in their possession, a ranked list of the non-custodial data sources that are most likely to contain non-duplicative discoverable information and any issues related to ESI, third-party discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 and production of information subject to privacy protections.
  • Patent Litigation Discovery Requirements: The timing, starting within 30 days after the Rule 16 Conference, for the plaintiff and defendant obligations are detailed.  In patent litigation proceedings, discovery is limited to 6 years before the complaint unless the information in question relates to the conception of the invention in question.
  • On-Site Inspection of Electronic Media:  Not permitted without good cause.
  • Search Methodology: Producing parties must disclose their search terms to the requesting party and the requesting party may request no more than ten additional terms which must not be overbroad (e.g., product and company names).
  • Format: ESI and non-ESI should be produced to the requesting party as text searchable image files (e.g., PDF or TIFF) unless they are not easily converted to image files (e.g., Excel and Access files).
  • Metadata Fields: The only fields required to be produced (if available) are – Custodian, File Path, Email Subject, Conversation Index, From, To, CC, BCC, Date Sent, Time Sent, Date Received, Time Received, Filename, Author, Date Created, Date Modified, MD5 Hash, File Size, File Extension, Control Number Begin, Control Number End, Attachment Range, Attachment Begin, and Attachment End (or the equivalent thereof).

So, what do you think?  How do these standards compare to those in your state?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Trends: Google “Vaults” Into eDiscovery Preservation
 

Yesterday, Google announced the launch of an eDiscovery tool named Vault for its Google Apps business customers.  Google Apps Vault is an add-on which preserves electronically stored information (ESI), including Gmail, chats and other correspondence to help users meet preservation obligations for litigation, regulation and compliance laws.

Jack Halprin, Head of eDiscovery at Google posted the following to the Google blog yesterday:

“Today we’re announcing the availability of Google Apps Vault (Vault) for Google Apps for Business customers. Vault is an easy-to-use and cost-effective solution for managing information critical to your business and preserving important data. It can reduce the costs of litigation, regulatory investigation and compliance actions.

Businesses of all sizes need to be prepared for the unexpected. In today’s environment, using Vault to manage, archive and preserve your data can help protect your business. Litigation costs can really take a toll on a business when minor lawsuits can run up to many thousands of dollars, and larger lawsuits can cost even more. Significant litigation costs come from having to search and find relevant data, which is also known as electronic discovery (eDiscovery).

E-discovery can be part of virtually any litigation and requires you to search, find and preserve your electronic information such as email. Vault helps protect your business with easy-to-use search so you can quickly find and preserve data to respond to unexpected customer claims, lawsuits or investigations. With an instant-on functionality and availability of your data a few clicks away, Vault provides access to all of your Gmail and on-the-record chats and can provide significant savings to your business over the traditional costs of litigation and eDiscovery.

Additionally, Vault gives Google Apps customers the extended management and information governance capabilities to proactively archive, retain and preserve Gmail and on-the-record chats. With the ability to search and manage data based on terms, dates, senders, recipients and labels, Vault helps you find the information you need, when you need it. Vault gives management, IT, legal and compliance users a systemized, repeatable and defensible platform that will reduce the costs and risks of doing business. With just a few clicks, the business can access a service designed for security and providing auditable access to critical information.

Vault is built on the same modern, 100% web-based architecture as Google Apps. Unlike traditional solutions, it does not require a complex and costly IT environment, and can be deployed in a matter of minutes. Vault brings the security, ease-of-use and reliability of Google Apps to information governance. It can help meet the sophisticated requirements of large organizations and makes these advanced capabilities available to business of all sizes.”

Vault is available to Google Apps customers for $5 per user per month.

So, what do you think?  Do you think that Google has the financial resources to make a splash with Vault?  Just kidding.  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Trends: Three Years Later, “Deleted” Facebook Photos Still Online
 

So, that’s why they call it “Facebook”.  Because the “faces” never leave!  Ba-dum-bah!  Hey, I’m in town all week!

Thanks to the Technologist for this article, by way of Ars Technica.  If you have deleted any of your photos from Facebook in the past three years, you may be surprised to find that they are probably still on the company’s servers.

Facebook is still trying to provide timely deletion of photos from its servers nearly three years after Ars Technica first raised the issue. Admitting that its older systems for storing uploaded content "did not always delete images from content delivery networks in a reasonable period of time even though they were immediately removed from the site," Facebook recently stated that it's currently completing a newer system that will effectively delete photos within 45 days of the removal request. Until then, photos that users thought they "deleted" from the social network months or even years ago remain accessible via direct link.

Facebook has addressed this issue in its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, as follows: “when you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).”

Not available to others unless they know the direct link to that content, apparently.

As author (from Ars Technica) Jacqui Cheng notes, “There were plenty of stories in between as well, and panicked Facebook users continue to e-mail me, asking if we have heard of any new way to ensure that their deleted photos are, well, deleted. For example, one reader linked me to a photo that a friend of his had posted of his toddler crawling naked on the lawn. He asked his friend to take it down for obvious reasons, and so the friend did—in May of 2008. As of this writing in 2012, I have personally confirmed that the photo is still online, as are several others that readers linked me to that were deleted at various points in 2009 and 2010.”  However, she noted that Facebook did delete her pictures after she did a story in 2010.

Needless to say, as discovery requests for Facebook content continue to increase (such as cases here, here, here, here and here illustrate), this could be discoverable ESI as long as that information is out there.  For attorneys that are contemplating requesting data from Facebook, it may be important to familiarize themselves with Facebook’s Law Enforcement page on how to request that information.  Apparently, just because the opposing party can no longer access that information doesn’t mean it’s not still available.

So, what do you think?  Are you surprised at how Facebook has been handling deletions?  Are you worried that some of your deleted data might still be out there?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Trends: One Third of Surveyed Attorneys Plans to Increase eDiscovery Spending
 

A new survey from Robert Half Legal eDiscovery Services finds that spending by organizations on electronic discovery-related services grew in 2011 and should continue to increase through 2013.  According to the survey of 350 attorneys in large law firms and corporations in the US and Canada, 23 percent of attorneys surveyed said their law firms and corporate legal departments increased eDiscovery expenditures in the last year, with 71 percent indicating that spending remained the same and just 2 percent indicating that they reduced spending.  For 2012 and 2013, nearly one-third (33 percent) of attorneys expected to increase spending on eDiscovery, while 56 percent expect no change in spending and 4 percent expect to decrease eDiscovery spending.

Other interesting findings from the survey include:

  • 27 percent of attorneys surveyed indicated that they don’t currently have a standard operating procedure in place in the event they receive an unexpected request for discovery;
  • 15 percent of survey participants are “not at all confident” that their organization has an eDiscovery plan in place to respond to a request for cloud-based information in response to a regulatory request or litigation;
  • 22 percent of attorneys surveyed are “not at all confident” that their organization has an eDiscovery plan in place to respond to a request for information from social media sites in response to a regulatory request or litigation;
  • Survey respondents indicated that their organization has received an average of 16 external requests for electronically stored information (ESI) in the last three years;
  • 12 percent of attorneys surveyed stated that issues or problems with collecting or reviewing ESI negatively affected a case or ruling for their law firm or company in the last three years;
  • 22 percent of responding corporate lawyers said their organization increased its handling of eDiscovery projects in house within the last year.

This study, and the IBISWorld study from last fall, point to continued growth in eDiscovery activities and spending.  It seems apparent that, as data within the world continues to double every 1.5 to 2 years, many law firms and corporations are having to “ramp up” to meet their eDiscovery obligations.

So, what do you think?  Do these results surprise you?  If so, are they higher or lower than you expected?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Case Law: Da Silva Moore Plaintiffs Question Predictive Coding Proposal, Judge Peck’s Activities
 

A few weeks ago, in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012), Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion making it likely the first case to accept the use of computer-assisted review of electronically stored information (“ESI”) for this case.  However, on March 13, District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted plaintiffs’ request to submit additional briefing on their February 22 objections to the ruling.  In that briefing (filed last Monday, March 26), the plaintiffs claimed that the protocol approved for predictive coding “risks failing to capture a staggering 65% of the relevant documents in this case” and questioned Judge Peck’s relationship with defense counsel and with the selected vendor for the case, Recommind.

While the plaintiffs noted that “the use of predictive coding may be appropriate under certain circumstances”, they made several contentions in their brief, including the following:

  • That the protocol approved for predictive coding “was adopted virtually wholesale from Defendant MSLGroup”;
  • That “Judge Peck authored an article and made no fewer than six public appearances espousing the use of predictive coding” during “the ten months between the filing of the Amended Complaint and the February 24 written opinion”;
  • That Judge Peck appeared on several of these panels (three alone with Ralph Losey, Jackson Lewis’ ediscovery counsel in this case (and a previous thought leader on this blog) who the plaintiff refers to as “another outspoken predictive coding advocate whom Judge Peck ‘know[s] very well’”;
  • That “defense counsel Losey and Judge Peck cited each other’s positions on predictive coding with approval in their respective articles, which came out just four months before Judge Peck issued his ESI opinion”;
  • That, to promote its predictive coding technology, “Recommind is a frequent sponsor of the e-discovery panels on which Judge Peck and Defense counsel Losey sit” and “Judge Peck’s February 24 e-discovery ruling is expected to be a boon not only to the predictive coding industry, but also to Recommind’s bottom line”;
  • That, with regard to the defendants’ proposed protocol, “Judge Peck failed to hold an evidentiary hearing or obtain expert testimony as to its reliability and accuracy”; and
  • That, “in the same preliminary study MSL relies on to tout the quality of the technology to be used in its predictive coding protocol, the technology’s “recall,” was very low, on average 35%”, so the defendants’ proposed protocol “risks failing to capture up to 65% of the documents material to Plaintiffs’ case”.

In a declaration supplementing the plaintiffs’ filing, Paul J. Neale, chief executive officer at DOAR Litigation Consulting and the plaintiffs’ eDiscovery consultant, contended that Judge Peck approved a predictive coding process that “does not include a scientifically supported method for validating the results”. He also contended in the declaration that Peck relied on “misstatements” by two Recommind employees (Eric Seggebruch and Jan Puzicha) that misrepresent the effectiveness and accuracy of the Recommind predictive coding process and also noted that Recommind did not perform as well at the 2011 Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) as its marketing materials and experts assert.

Now, the ball is back in Judge Carter’s court.  Will he hold an evidentiary hearing on the eDiscovery issues raised by the plaintiff?  Will he direct Judge Peck to do so?  It will be interesting to see what happens next?

So, what do you think?  Do the plaintiff’s objections have merit?  Will Judge Carter give the defendants a chance to respond?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Issuing the Hold is Just the Beginning

Yesterday, we discussed identifying custodians, preparing a written litigation hold, issuing the hold and tracking responses.  Today, we’ll discuss interviewing hold notice recipients, follow up on notices, releasing holds when the obligation to preserve is removed and tracking all holds within an organization.  Here are the rest of the best practices for implementing a litigation hold.

Interviewing Hold Notice Recipients: Depending on the case, follow-up interviews (with at least the key custodians) are generally accepted as a best practice and may be necessary to ensure defensibility of the notice.  The point of these interviews is to repeat the duty to preserve, provide a detailed explanation of the requirements of the hold, answer the recipient’s questions (if any), and confirm that the recipient understands and agrees to adhere to the notice. You should keep written records of each of these interviews and document the reasoning for determining which individuals to interview.

Follow-Up on Hold Notices: For a litigation hold plan to be successful and defensible, it needs to include periodic follow-up reminders to recipients of the notices to inform them that the data in question remains under hold until the case concludes. Follow-up reminders could simply be a retransmission of the original notice or they could be a summary of all of the notices the individual has received, if there are multiple cases with holds for that individual. There is no specific requirement on how often the reminders should be sent, but it’s best to send them at least quarterly.  For some cases, it may be necessary to send them monthly.

Release the Hold: Not to be confused with “release the hounds”, it is just as important to inform people when the duty to preserve the data expires (typically, when the case is completed) as it is to notify them when the duty to preserve begins.  Releasing the hold is key to ensure that information doesn’t continue to be preserved outside of the organization’s document retention policies – if it is, it may then become subject to litigation holds in other litigations unnecessarily.  Releasing the hold also helps keep custodians from being overwhelmed with multiple retention notices, which could cause them to take the notices less seriously.  However, the release notification should be clear with regard to the fact that data subject to hold in another matter should continue to be preserved to meet discovery obligations in that matter.

Hold Tracking System: It’s important to have a reliable “system” for tracking litigation holds across all matters within the organization. Depending on your needs, that could be a customized application or a simple database or spreadsheet to track the information.  You should keep historical tracking data even for completed matters as that information can be useful in guiding hold issuance on new matters (by helping to identify the correct custodians for new matters that are factually similar or related to current closed or open matters).  At a minimum, a tracking system should:

  • Track responses from individual custodians and identify those who have not yet responded,
  • Track periodic reminder notices and release notices,
  • Provide ability to report a list of people with a duty to preserve for a specific matter as well as all matters for which a person is under retention.

So, what do you think?  Do you have a solid “hold” on your hold process?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.