COALSP January 2010Lunch-n-Learn

Search ConceptsState of the Art in

eDiscovery & Early Case Assessment

Introductions

OrganizerShari Bjorkquist RichHolme Roberts & Owens, LLP

HostHolland & Hart, LLP

SpeakerJeffrey Blank, Account ExecutiveAutonomy, Inc.

Advisory Board Member

Agenda

• Brief Autonomy Introduction / Reminder

• Information Governance & Legal Hold Challenges

• Search Techniques to Reduce Burden & Cost

• Why Early Case Assessment

• Demonstration

Rich Media Management

eDiscovery, Information Governance & Archiving

Web Content & Marketing Optimization

Business Process Management

Records Management

Customer Interaction Solutions

Legal Content Management

One Group, One Technology

Information Governance andLegal Hold Challenges

• Complying with the duty to preserve & produce

– Courts want to know how data was preserved and searched

• Custodians are growing across e-communication channels

• Data sources are decentralized and more mobile

– Moving content into RM systems has proved problematic

– Vast amounts of unstructured information increases risks & costs

• Volume and complexity of cases is increasing

– Time to respond is decreasing

Failure to implement proper ESI preservation process is“gross negligence.”In re NTL, Inc. Securities Litigation

Failure to implement proper ESI preservation process is“gross negligence.”In re NTL, Inc. Securities Litigation

Discovery Considerations: What, Who, Where, When & How?• What information is relevant?

• Who is likely to have relevant information?– Get organizational charts, create lists,

interviews

• Where is the data located? – The “Morgan Stanley” problem

• When is the relevant time frame?– Historical only? Current data? Ongoing?

• How must the data be handled?– FRCP– HIPAA/PCI/PII– Other privacy concerns

Increased litigation, the ESI explosion, global organizations, shortened timelines, additional process requirements,  and a savvy judiciary and plaintiff’s bar have made traditional manual processes more challenging

Preservation: Complying with the Requirements of the Law is Getting Harder

“ It is not sufficient . . . for a company merely to tell employees to 'save relevant documents,'... this sort of token effort will hardly ever suffice.” (3)

“…many of these specific employee-conducted searches managed to exclude inculpatory documents that were highly germane to Plaintiffs' requests.” (5)

1 See NTL, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2007 WL 241344 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30 2007)2 See: In re Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 2007 WL 3172642 (Bkrtcy. D.Hawaii October 30, 2007). 3 See: Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’Lakes, Inc., 2007 WL 684001 (D.Colo., Mar. 2, 2007) 3 See: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Rambus, Inc., 439 F.Supp.2d 524, 565 (E.D. Va. 2006)4 See Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2007 WL 1848665 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2007) 5 See Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 2006 WL 3538935 at *8 (D.N.J., Dec. 6, 2006)

Sanctions and recent cases cite need for improved FRCP compliance.• Courts say a hold notice alone is not reasonable (1)• Organizations can be held liable for spoliation and employee

malfeasance even if they properly perform notice (2)• Self-collection is not systemized, repeatable or easily defensible (3)• Courts will ask what was done beyond the notice (4)

Courts want to know what was done beyond the notice…Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2007 WL 1848665 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 

2007) • Court ordered American Blind to provide declarations stating “what they did with respect to 

preserving and collecting documents.” (Emphasis in original)Exact Software N. Am., Inc. v. Infocon, Inc., 2006 WL 3499992 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 5, 2006)• Court demands Company outline steps taken to preserve, search and collect ESI in response to 

discovery request

Preservation: A Hold Notice Alone is Not Enough

A hold notice alone, absent other steps, may not be reasonable

In re NTL, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2007 WL 241344 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2007)• “Although NTL sent out hold memos. . . those hold memos were not sufficient, since they 

subsequently were ignored . . . The evidence, in fact, is that no adequate litigation hold existed.”• Failure to implement proper ESI preservation process is “gross negligence”

In re Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 2007 WL 3172642 (Bkrtcy. D.Hawaii October 30, 2007).• The court said it was not reasonable to simply tell the witness to preserve evidence and trust him 

to comply. “Because Mesa failed to take such steps, Mesa facilitated [the witness] misconduct.”

What to Preserve?

The preservation obligation is clearly defined:• Duty to preserve extends to only relevant information. See FRCP

Rule 26(b)(1).

The duty to preserve evidence, once it attaches, does not extendbeyond evidence that is relevant and material to the claims atissue in the Litigation.

Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 2006 WL 565893 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 5, 2006) at *27

Clearly [there is no duty to] preserve every shred of paper, every e‐mail or electronic document, and every backup tape…Such a rule would cripple large corporations.

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 217 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“ZubulakeIV”)

“ ““ “

Additional ESI Cases & Considerations

Websites are a particularly problematic source of ESI– See Arteria Property Pty Ltd. v. Universal Funding V.T.O. Inc.,

2008 WL 4513696 (D.N.J. Oct. 1, 2008)ESI Includes Audio Recordings

– Failure to preserve audio interview transcripts results in adverse inference

– See Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., 2008 WL 4093497 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2008)

Parties reminded that “documents” includes all forms of ESI– Court reminds parties that the definition of documents include “electronic messages,

voice mail, E-mail, telephone message records or logs, computer and network activity logs, hard drives, backup data, removable computer storage media … Web pages, databases, … video, phonographic, tape or digital recordings or transcripts thereof…”

– “Information that serves to identify, locate, or link such material, such as file inventories, file folders, indices, and metadata, is also included in this definition.”

– See In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litig., 2008 WL 1831668 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2008)

Remember that only relevant ESI must be preserved and is within the scope of discovery

13

Additional ESI Cases & Considerations

Websites are a particularly problematic source of ESI– See Arteria Property Pty Ltd. v. Universal Funding V.T.O. Inc.,

2008 WL 4513696 (D.N.J. Oct. 1, 2008)ESI Includes Audio Recordings

– Failure to preserve audio interview transcripts results in adverse inference

– See Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., 2008 WL 4093497 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2008)

Parties reminded that “documents” includes all forms of ESI– Court reminds parties that the definition of documents include “electronic messages,

voice mail, E-mail, telephone message records or logs, computer and network activity logs, hard drives, backup data, removable computer storage media … Web pages, databases, … video, phonographic, tape or digital recordings or transcripts thereof…”

– “Information that serves to identify, locate, or link such material, such as file inventories, file folders, indices, and metadata, is also included in this definition.”

– See In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litig., 2008 WL 1831668 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2008)

Remember that only relevant ESI must be preserved and is within the scope of discovery

13

New Developments in Legal Hold Practices

• Dashboards• Holistic Legal Hold – the full lifecycle

– The Legal Hold process requires preservation of potentially relevant data• Automated custodian interview process• Dynamic Data Source Mapping• Putting the squeeze on over collection• Just in Time Collection • Preservation in-place for forensically sound collections• Remote Preservation and Collection• Legal Hold integration with Early Case Assessment and eDiscovery

Process/EDRM

Advanced Legal Hold Techniques

The Legal Hold process requires preservation of potentially relevant data–Notification alone is not enough

Advanced techniques & solutions include more holistic approaches:

• A single, fully-integrated, auditable platform• Integrated notification management and

automated preservation and collection• Built-in workflow & best practices case

management• Automated custodian interviews• Automated & dynamic data mapping

Global retailer required a solution to manage legal holds, custodians, identification, preservation and collection process

• Goal: Build a defensible process in compliance with FRCP

– Best practices custodian, notification and interview management

– Forensically sound, defensible preservation and collection functionality

• Options: included point solutions with no end-to-end strategy

– PSS and Exterro for notification – EnCase eDiscovery and Kazeon for collections

• Solution: Chose Autonomy’s end-to-end platform for our vision and complete hold, notification, preservation and collection solution

• Result: Built a defensible process in legal for:– Case and custodian management, interviews, hold

notifications, preservation and collection, release and disposition

Case Study: Legal Hold

Techniques to Reduce Burden & Cost

• Increased litigation, government investigation and regulatory activities are driving processes

– Breadth of investigations & litigation is vast

• Corporate clients looking to assess vulnerabilities and meet challenges through:

– Advanced search technology to analyze all data including call recordings and audio files

– Instituting legal holds through a comprehensive solution with speed and scalability

– Bridging the gap between Legal and IT– Managing costs– Reducing vendor footprint through end-to-

end providers

Early Case Assessment

Analyzing the facts early in the litigation life cycle to:• Assess the merits of the matter, exposure to risk• Reduce the volume of data for review• Size the case • Set strategy

Early Case Assessment Survey*

• Conducting early case assessment enable attorneys to reduce the litigation expenses in 50% of their cases, on average

• Managing budgets – ECA assists attorneys in their ability to prepare a more accurate litigation budget

* Survey conducted by Cogent Research

Judge Facciola, 2006 Article re: Privilege Review“It is hard to imagine a greater waste of money than paying a lawyer $250 an hour to look at recipes, notices of the holiday party, and NCAA Final Four pool entries while doing a privilege review. A company that permits that situation to occur is wasting its shareholders' money as surely as if it were burning it in the parking lot. In the meantime, the staggering costs of a privilege review will grow, driving the costs of litigation ever upward ….”

Using Advanced Technology to Assess the Case

Advanced search and analytics can increase accuracy, reduce overcollection, and improve overall efficiency. These techniques include conceptual search, automated clustering & contextual analysis

The challenge of legacy techniques (keyword & Boolean):• Limitations, shortfalls and over inclusiveness are 

well documented

• Studies have shown that keyword searches find only approximately 22% of relevant data. (SeePaul, George L. and J.R. Baron, “Information Inflation: Can The Legal System Cope?” 22‐24, Richmond Journal of Law and Technology (2006), http://law.richmond.edu/jolt/v13i2/article10.pdf.)

• Additional shortcomings include inability to identify slang, abbreviations, or misspellings

21

The Courts Understand Technology

The Judiciary Will Look at Technology…

• Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 251 (D. Md. 2008)

– Magistrate Judge Grimm wrote that “all keyword searches are not created equal; and there is a growing body of literature that highlights the risks associated with conducting an unreliable or inadequate keyword search....”

• Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, 242 F.R.D. 139 (D.D.C. 2007):

– Magistrate Judge Facciola discussed the search and review of a large volume of data: “I bring to the parties’ attention recent scholarship that argues that concept searching, as opposed to keyword searching, is more efficient and more likely to produce the most comprehensive results.”

• Asarco, Inc. v. United States Envtl Prot. Agency, 2009 WL1138830 (D.D.C. Apr. 28, 2009)

– The plaintiff contended that the defendant's keyword search was conducted in bad faith as it used only one search term. The court ordered an additional keyword search utilizing four additional key terms.

– The court stated that "keyword searches are no longer the favored methodology."

22

Why Early Case Assessment?

Early case assessment is critical• Preview ESI to assess the merits of a case

• Search and identify potentially relevant data sources

• Understand the data– Identify hidden custodians and communications linkages 

and gaps

– Quickly prepare for meet & confer

Traditional methods require collection prior to assessment

Advanced technology can assess data in‐place

Other uses for technology in this phase:

• Prioritize documents for review

• Assess how many reviewers will be required

Non-Linear Review

Information Theory andBayesian Inference

off balance sheettransactions

side letters

product performance issues

company registration

auditingquestions

low inventory levels

high expenses for procurement

staffunauthorized

credit card transaction

increasing operating

costs

high returns ratio

poor quality inputs

poor supply chain

management

new suppliers

transfer pricing

procurement issues

Advanced ECA:Automatically ClusterContent Together by Concepts

2D Cluster Maps

Link Map

Message Tracer

Case Study: ECA

Industrywide Investigation by the DOJ

• Rapidly Ingest 60 GB of raw PSTs

• Legal Team utilized Early Case Assessment Services to reduce volume by 95% before production

• Automatic detection of multiple foreign language docs and native language search cut time and cost

• Data was produced and accepted by the DOJ in accordance with their standards

• Tremendous risk avoidance and cost savings of 50%+

• DEMONSTRATION

LegalTech NY 2010

• ~30 minute briefing sessions with Autonomy Executive and eDiscovery Experts

Questions

Jeffrey BlankAccount Executive, Autonomy, Inc.Mobile: 303.763.7428Email: jblank@autonomy.com

Autonomy eDiscovery Spans the EDRM

Evolution of e-Discovery

IDOLEnterpriseSearch

Archive

ManualHold

Evolution of eDiscovery

Archive

Hold

Automatic