2010: A Year In Review

In 2010 we have seen many exciting changes to the e-discovery landscape. Metadata and social media have now become standards to be included in discovery requests. Litigation continued to rise in a lagging economy and the sanctions relating to e-discovery violations grew as courts increased awareness. The use of e-discovery tools have been extended for both regulatory compliance and internal investigation functions as well.

In response, corporations have begun to look into new ways to approach the e-discovery problem. First, they have reached out to create internal or external clouds for e-discovery. They have also incorporated archiving into their e-discovery process, a move which intimates the continuing trend of moving discovery in-house.

In 2011 we see similar trends coming to the fore. The incorporation of more data sources (including structured databases), coupled with more advanced analytics and outsourcing to the cloud for space and processing power will ensure that the year ahead will be a dynamic one. For a full 2011 projection check out ZL Technologies' 12 Important E-Discovery Trends for 2011 and Beyond published by eweek.com.  

FRCP Rule 26 Changes

Visit this site for the latest changes on FRCP Rule 26 regarding e-discovery. Here are a couple of the highlights from the article:

Instead, under proposed amendments to Rule 26, those communications would come under the protection of the work-product doctrine. The amendments would prohibit discovery of draft expert reports and limit discovery of attorney-expert communications. Still allowed would be full discovery of the expert's opinions and of the facts or data used to support them....

...The proposed rule retains the three categories of attorney-expert communications that are excluded from the work-product protection under the existing rule:

1. Communications pertaining to the expert's compensation.
2. Facts or data that the attorney provided and the expert considered in forming opinions.
3. Assumptions that the attorney provided and that the expert relied on.

In another change, the proposed rule would alter the procedure for witnesses who will provide expert testimony but who were not specifically retained to provide expert testimony. Treating physicians and government accident investigators are examples of this category of expert.

NewsFlash: e-Discovery Sanctions on the Rise

Okay, so maybe it isn’t shocking to learn that E-Discovery sanctions have risen every year in the past 10 years.  But it is surprising to find that the rise has been so great and that it continues regardless of aggressive attorney educational efforts and maturing technological solutions. 

If you haven’t already seen it, last month the folks at legalworkshop.org published a thorough analysis of e-discovery violations throughout the past 29 years (yes, there was an e-discovery case in 1981). You can find the original post here.  According to the authors “ESI has played a more predominant role in pretrial discovery; producing parties have struggled to comply with ever-expanding and increasingly complex responsibilities. The liberal scope of discovery in federal courts, when coupled with ESI’s defining characteristics—high volume, broad dispersal, and dynamic nature—also confounds efforts to conduct discovery effectively and economically.”

We continue to see this played out in the courts and in the marketplace. The ruling in Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp concluded that Qualcomm and its counsel failed to produce more than 200,000 pages of relevant electronic documents and was ordered to pay $8.5 million in legal fees. In the Victor Stanley v. Creative Pipe decision, intentional e-discovery mishaps nearly led to jail time and cost over $300,000 in sanctions.

A quick analysis of the data shows that written rulings on E-Discovery almost tripled between 2003 and 2004 – with a steady increase in each consecutive year and culminating in 2009 with 111 total rulings, 46 sanctions awarded and 12 adverse jury instruction sanctions. The rise of adverse jury instruction sanctions should be of particular concern for  defendants since it was found that the sanctions disproportionally affect them.  Indeed, since 2005, the courts have seen between a 1:5 to 1:3 ratio of plaintiff sanctions to defendants’.

With sanctions being given out at historic rates, it behooves legal counsels to take advantage of timely educational opportunities.  For example, ZL is hosting a webinar next week, December 14^th, on Ethics in E-Discovery (sign up here) and another on 1/11 and 1/25 in January.  For more information click here. 

In addition, in-house attorneys should re-evaluate their e-discovery software to see if it can scale to match the incredible influx of documents and includes air-tight audit trails to prove the defensibility of all actions taken.  By combining education and the tools to properly address e-discovery, ZL aims to help all of our customers develop an unquestionably defensible e-discovery process.

Avoid the Big House: Bring e-Discovery In-House

Over at Law.com you can find an extensive examination of the recently filed Victor Stanley Inc. v. Creative Pipe Inc ruling. Here's a valuable excerpt [emphasis mine]:

Magistrate Judge Paul Grimm's lengthy opinion in Victor Stanley Inc. v. Creative Pipe Inc., filed Sept. 9, is worth the read... But the opinion is newsworthy because it sets out a harsh remedy for the defendant whom he found had destroyed evidence, lied to the court and dragged out proceedings -- civil contempt, with the defendant facing severe costs and fines or a two-year prison sentence if he fails to pay that fine. 

The court's focus upon and analysis of the costs -- in time, money, effort, and expertise -- of spoliation and dilatory tactics to the justice system is both spot on and timely.

What this has done is to highlight how important it is to follow a defensible discovery collection process and reinforce the fact that spoliation can directly lead to jail time. The importance of a legally defensible and thorough discovery process cannot be overstated.

It is not just one tool which can be a panacea, but the build-out of an entire data management process which will reduce risk. The industry standard, Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM), serves as a decent guide:



The EDRM, although a good guide, can be limiting, as its flow does not represent the continuous nature of many discovery processes. At ITBusinessEdge I found another way to look at managing the process:

This visualization, unlike the one-way EDRM, views information management and discovery as part of a continuing process. I believe that this is much more accurate, as discovery can last for years (in the case of Victor Stanley, four years) and can involve going back to the data well many times for a multitude of matters or custodians. The process involves many more parties than purely Legal or IT, but touches upon the foundation of a company's technology strategy.

In order to develop a thorough discovery process, GCs and, increasingly, CIOs need to bring as much e-discovery in-house as possible. CIO.com states that:

The other critical remedy to minimizing risks and costs is bringing as much of the e-discovery process as possible “in-house”. Of course, this means that in-house staff must have a thorough working knowledge of the relevant processes, organizational archiving and data structure and enough technical know-how to choose and implement the right tools to support the required processes, which include (data) identification, preservation, collection, processing, review, analysis, production and presentation.

ZL Technologies developed our solution exactly so that companies can have this level of control over their data. Streamlining the discovery process is only one function of managing data, yet it may well be the most important, as emphasized by Judge Grimm in Victor Stanley Inc. v. Creative Pipe Inc. Corporations should get control of their data and discovery...and leave prison to the murderers.