The Extended Functions of E-Discovery: Litigation Support, Regulatory Compliance, and Internal Investigations

E-discovery solutions have naturally been classified as litigation support, and in this post I'll go over why this area continues to be of growing concern. In another section, I will cover why the same solutions which provide litigation support can also help to solve internal investigations as well. 

First, rising litigation highlights the importance of e-Discovery. In Fulbright's most recent survey litigation survey, over 90% of U.S. and U.K. respondents expecting legal disputes to increase or remain the same:  

…93% of U.S. and 97% of U.K. respondents expecting legal disputes to increase or remain the same this coming year. This expectation comes during a year when 87% of U.S. respondents faced new litigation in the past year (up from 83% last year) and 53% of all respondents initiated a suit in the past year (up from 48% overall last year)....In the U.S. – and for large-caps in particular – intellectual property and patent litigation are also high on respondents’ radars. 

And, according to the same study, "More regulators have been investigating a greater variety of companies, from small to large and across sectors – particularly banking, health care and energy." Rampant regulatory changes and stricter enforcement seem to have increased the need for the ability to find documents within an enterprise.

Like most things, cost produces the constraints which this process work around. Bringing discovery in-house reduces the cost at an astonishing rate. Patrick Oot, a member of the Law Technology News Editorial Advisory Board, is director of electronic discovery and senior litigation counsel at Verizon, based in Washington, D.C. says:

In July 2008, our EDD team completed a business case that presented an opportunity for Verizon to save about $4 million in legal expenses in one year by establishing an in-house system, with support staff, infrastructure and software for internal data processing, hosting and review. We believe that over the next three years, this business case will yield up to potential 395 percent return on investment.

Following this example, both NBC and Microsoft have moved their discovery internally. At NBC, Jonathan Chow -Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) - heads the IT implementation and explained to ComputerWorld that, as with many corporations, the information security department includes e-discovery as a key responsibility for litigation support, M&A activities, and internal investigations. The move in-house allows NBC to administer searches and investigations internally without the dubious cost of hiring outside vendors.

E-discovery Used Internally

E-discovery solutions have traditionally only been seen as a litigation support tool. But no longer. Today, savvy businesses are using the same tools to solve internal investigations, regulatory compliance and records management issues. 

The use of e-discovery tools in internal investigations remains vital for international corporations as well as domestic outfits. All major companies need the ability to search electronically stored information ( ESI) to complete internal investigations that may be generated by HR or corporate security. No matter the regulatory environment, personnel misconduct and fraud detection must be of vital importance for any company - and a particular worry for CISOs, Chief Security Officers, General Counsels, and CEOs. Unauthorized access to sell or manipulate data and sexual harassment or other inappropriate communication has become all too common, and internal investigations have become ever more important as a result.

Compliance with government regulations remains of great importance to industries such as financial services and healthcare as well as the broader set of publically listed companies. NASD, SEC, and HIPAA govern strict regulations on the retention of e-mail and other ESI. As a part of information management and security, e-discovery tools like ZL’s Unifed Archive can manage the retention (or destruction) schedules for ESI based on a granular set of rules. If a company’s ESI were sand in a box, ZL’s proactive e-discovery tool is a very speedy fine-toothed comb.

As the application of e-discovery tools expand, many companies find that classifying them purely as litigation support can be a misnomer. The discovery function serves both litigation support and internal investigations due to the increasing need to hold employees accountable to company policies. No matter the name, the ability to search through a company's ESI remains a pillar of responsible corporate governance. 

Dead End: Hold On! Theres a hole in your case...

Over at Practical e-Discovery, they point to the recent ruling in Siani v. State Univ. of New York, 2010 as being critical in the e-Discovery space. To understand why, let us start at crux of the problem: when do organizations have a duty to preserve data?

Is it forever? Or when there is reasonable suspicion of an upcoming case? Does the pre-suit duty to preserve begin by just a letter by a putative plaintiff which even contemplates a suit? Or perhaps when the suit hits? Without a definitive landmark, it is impossible for organizations and legal teams to plan for litigation. And in a world which runs on dependable schedules and efficiency, that means costly and protracted reaction. 

Siani relies upon the the work-product doctrine, which encompasses documents that are prepared “in anticipation of litigation.” As Practical e-Discovery mentions, Siani v. State Univ. of New York reached the reasonable conclusion, 'that if litigation was reasonably foreseeable for one purpose, “it was reasonably foreseeable for all purposes."' Which means that the duty to preserve begins with the creation of any work-product.

The work-product doctrine slices both ways, since by invoking it for protection means that to the organization, litigation was reasonably anticipated and the duty to preserve had been triggered at that point. Again, this translates into the fact that the beginning of the work-product immunity should be the beginning of related electronically stored information (ESI) on legal hold.

In effect, companies must enact legal hold the moment in which documents are prepared in anticipation of litigation. There is no way to do so without a proactive archiving and e-Discovery tool already in place, because otherwise there would be reliance on the custodian (potentially those involved) to retain their own (potentially incriminating) documents. And as we have seen in Adams v. Dell, there continues to be a large question in custodian-trusted legal hold.

As more and more of these cases evolve, organizations must focus on proactive e-Discovery.

FTW: Pro-eDiscovery For The Win

Check out this recent announcement by the State of Florida. Adam Sand, eDiscovery guru, covers it in this post on The Modern Archivist. He makes some good points on the general direction in which eDiscovery is going, namely that there are more and more sources of data which are being considered to be relevant, and social media sits right on the the same frontier that email and other electronically stored information (ESI) only a few years ago. This relates directly to the Technology Adoption Curve, something I vaguely remember from my days at Wharton: 

• Innovators tend to be more educated and prosperous, with a greater tolerance for risk
• Early adopters are younger, educated, and active in the community
• Early majority are more conservative, but open to new ideas and influential within the community
• Late majority may be older, less educated, conservative, and less socially active
• Laggards are highly conservative, oldest and least educated. They often are less prosperous and more risk averse

In terms of eDiscovery and total information governance, I think we are looking at a major reset in the business over the last few years. Although there have been many point solutions to handle the EDRM model, there have exist few truly all-encompassing solutions that can take a company from the information management side to production and move seamlessly back and forth (please refer to the EDRM model below). The move from Reactive eDiscovery to Proactive eDiscovery has changed the landscape of the business.

What this fundamental reset means is that we've seen a reboot in the Technology Adoption Curve. I believe that we are somewhere in the Innovator/Early Adopter phase for this space, namely because what we are seeing in the market are that companies like Cisco and Wells Fargo actively looking to upgrade their eDiscovery technologies to the best available proactive solutions. These are the same companies that are willing to take the time investment to become educated, and lead their industries in risk management. Once the Innovators and Early Adopters begin to the raise awareness and the government continues to add pressure (see my post on HR 1387 or Steve Chan's post here), we will see enough examples to propel the proactive industry to the real meat of the bell curve. 

Inside legal counsels should be aware that this is the curve of the future. Proactive eDiscovery means being prepared for litigation like companies never had the capability of being before. And we all know that the key to success (and winning) is all in the preparation. Being a laggard is simply too risky.