Judge to KPMG: Save the hard drives — and blame yourself | Thomson Reuters (Alison Frankel)

Memo to KPMG: When a federal judge sends a strong signal that she doesn’t want to show up her magistrate judge, you should heed the warning.

In January, you may recall, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon of Manhattan federal court attempted to moot a hot e-discovery dispute between the audit firm KPMG and a putative class of audit associates suing KPMG for unpaid overtime. The federal magistrate overseeing discovery in the case had ordered KPMG to preserve the computer hard drives of every potential class member, including those who had left the firm. KPMG’s lawyers at Sidley Austin argued that storing the hard drives could end up costing more than the plaintiffs’ claims are worth. The Chamber of Commerce and the International Association of Defense Counsel piled on, asserting that the magistrate’s e-discovery order had the potential to fundamentally change the balance of power in class actions by making it too expensive for KPMG and other defendants in similar situations to continue litigating cases against them.

McMahon was clearly reluctant to second-guess U.S. Magistrate Judge James Cott, so in a Jan. 3 order conditionally certifying a class of audit associates, she hinted that her ruling, which focused on a classwide question of KPMG’s policy rather than individualized facts, had mooted the e-discovery flap. KPMG and the plaintiffs, represented by Outten & Golden, declined to take the hint. KPMG continued its call for McMahon to overturn the magistrate’s discovery order.

On Friday, McMahon said no — and blamed KPMG for the predicament. Significantly, the judge agreed with KPMG’s amici that “proportionality is necessarily a factor in determining a party’s preservation obligations.” She said that it doesn’t make sense for the cost of retaining e-discovery to outweigh the potential value of the information that’s being preserved. But McMahon’s 22-page opinion concluded that KPMG had been so obdurate in refusing access to the hard drives that she couldn’t conduct a proportionality analysis.

via Judge to KPMG: Save the hard drives — and blame yourself.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Electronic Discovery: It’s Just Technology, Right? | AmericanBar.org (Howard Reissner & Daryl Shetterly)

Newly minted lawyers who barely remember the days before texting, Facebook, and smartphones were part of our daily lives may be forgiven for wondering why so much angst has developed at the intersection of law and technology. Surely our sophisticated legal system can adapt to the increased use of electronic communication, right?

If you weren’t on the scene to watch it unfold, it may be hard to appreciate the ways the explosion of information our clients create and store has changed the face of discovery. There was a time when clients sent us a folder or box of paper containing the documents relevant to the litigation.

Now the data is likely to come on a hard drive containing gigabytes or terabytes of data that, if printed to paper, would fill the lobby of our law firm with boxes. Finding the relevant documents is like looking for a needle in the proverbial haystack. Depending on the value of the case, it may cost more to find the relevant documents than the case is worth.

So how can you help litigants meet the goal of a “just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding” referenced in Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

When faced with an electronic discovery issue, think about it in terms of people, process, and technology.

via Electronic Discovery: It’s Just Technology, Right?.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Advanced Text Analytics from Global EDD Group

Modern organizations have access to abundant sources of data that contain jewels of useful knowledge.  Emails, web pages, memos, call center transcripts, survey responses, claims notes, legal cases, patent descriptions, research articles, and incident reports – all hold valuable pieces of knowledge that are hard to discover because they are hidden within large volumes of raw data or structured datasets not typically indexed for key term searching.  Overwhelmed by the glut and variety of data, law firms and corporations are seeking new methods to analyze large volumes of structured and unstructured data to not only discover key knowledge, but to create case or review strategy as well.

Automated Knowledge Discovery & E-Discovery Text Analytics

Automated Knowledge Discovery (“AKD”) is our service that derives knowledge from text and structured data, including XML files, databases, spreadsheets, web sites, documents, and emails using Natural Language Processing, Machine Learning, Interactive Visualization and Report Generation.  AKD enables you to gain valuable insight into large diverse data sets by leveraging intelligent data mining and analysis tools to undertake a range of knowledge discovery tasks, including:

Data Source Integration
  • XML Files
  • Spreadsheets
  • Email / PST Files / Exchange Datastores
  • File Shares
  • Databases
  • Delimited Files
  • RSS Feeds
  • Web Sites

Distinct Text Identification 

Compares records to determine whether they are duplicates, though comparison is fuzzy in the sense that the two values do not have to be 100% identical in content and form.  Similar to “near duplicate indentication”.

Key Term Linking

Generates a visualization of associations between various keywords so that that relationships between words are well-represented in a set of documents or a column of text values.

Text Clustering

Utilizes phrases find and identify similar groups of documents or records based on the contents of text.
  • Dates
  • Human names
  • Organizations
  • Addresses
  • Phones
  • Money Amount
  • Geographic Names

Keyword Extraction

Determines the important concepts discussed in a text via the identification the most frequent keywords and the ability to drill down on each keywords to see how the words are being mentioned.
Phrase Extraction
Statistical determination of phrases by examining the co-occurrences of consecutive words within the text. Stated more simply, if two words occur next to each other repeatedly in several sentences across several documents, it can be statistically assumed that these words constitute a phrase.

Link Analysis

Displays correlations and clusters of terms extracted from a set of documents or text values with the ability to drill down to review the specific relationships.

Complex Searching

Searches for phrases, proximity, by sentence or paragraph, synonyms and alternate term forms and enables the ability to see a ranked list of matching records, search within the results of previous searches, refine search query by providing positive and negative document-based relevance feedback, and  the highlighting of occurrences of words in documents for easy navigation.

Our Automated Knowledge Discovery Services provide valuable insight to any collection of discovery data, far beyond key term browsing typically associated with litigation support systems, many of which simply do not have the ability to process structured data such as SQL databases or “as found” versions of email stores.  Additional benefits of AKD Services include:

  • Mobile platform deployable worldwide
  • Fee structure based on time, not volume
  • No long term commitments, user fees or storage fees
  • Compliments, not replaces, current review workflows and systems
  • Ideal platform for data sampling

    Foundations of Databases Abiteboul Hull Vianu ...

    Image via Wikipedia

Enhanced by Zemanta
LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Failure to Produce Originals Could be Spoliation in Third Circuit : Electronic Discovery Law

Bull v. United Parcel Service, Inc., — F.3d —, 2012 WL 10932 (3d Cir. Jan. 4, 2012)

In this case, the appellate court concluded that “producing copies in instances where the originals have been requested may constitute spoliation if it would prevent discovering critical information,” but found that in the present case, the District Court abused its discretion in finding that spoliation had occurred and in imposing a sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

The plaintiff in this case failed to produce two original notes from her doctor (but did produce copies during discovery).  During trial, when plaintiff’s counsel attempted to introduce a copy of one of the notes, defendant objected on the basis of best evidence.  In the sidebar that followed and in subsequent questioning of the plaintiff by the court, it became clear that there was some confusion between plaintiff and counsel as to the existence of the originals.  Ultimately, plaintiff indicated that the original note “should be” at her home and the there was no reason she did not search for it previously.  This contradicted her attorney’s representation that the plaintiff had been asked for the originals and reported that she could not find them.  Accordingly, the District Court declared a mistrial and invited the defendant to file a motion for sanctions.  Plaintiff produced the original doctor’s notes to the court five days later.  Thereafter, upon consideration of defendant’s motion for sanctions, the District Court invoked its inherent authority and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice.  Plaintiff appealed.

via Failure to Produce Originals Could be Spoliation in Third Circuit : Electronic Discovery Law.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Global EDD Group and Litigation Edge at LegalTech® New York 2012

Brad Mixner, President of Global EDD Group and Director of Litigation Edge (Singapore),  will be attending LegalTech® New York 2012 being held 30 January – 01 February at the New York Hilton.  Mr. Mixner will be available for one-on-one meetings to discuss the exciting new services offered by Global EDD Group and Litigation Edge, including:

  1. iReview AnalyticsEarly Case Assessment Tool
  2. Automated Knowledge Discovery Services, featuring Advanced Text Analytics
  3. E-Discovery Services in the Asia Pacific region
  4. iReview Global Discovery Platform™ with hosting in the United States and Singapore
  5. Data Collection Services across North America, Asia and Europe
  6. Flat Rate Pricing for Bundled E-Discovery Services
  7. Preferred Partner Program for Vendors
Those interested in scheduling a meeting with Mr. Mixner may email, Tweet or Post a request.

About LegalTech:

LegalTech® is the largest and most important legal technology event of the year.With trade shows in both New York and Los Angeles, LegalTech® is the #1 Resource for law firms and legal departments to get hands-on practical information for improving their law practice management.

LegalTech® provides an in-depth look at what the technological world has in store for you and your practice AND offers an expansive exhibit floor with the most extensive gathering of innovative products designed to meet your current and future technology needs.

The legal marketplace has tremendous buying power that resists dips in our ever-changing business economy. For this reason, competition in the legal industry is fierce and making face-to-face connections is often the difference between your company closing a sale and losing that sale to your competitor. For over a quarter of a century LegalTech® has been there to help you even the playing field. (http://www.legaltechshow.com/r5/cob_page.asp?category_code=ltech)

 

 

 

Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta
LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Advanced E-Discovery Text Analytics from Global EDD Group

Modern organizations have access to abundant sources of data that contain jewels of useful knowledge.  Emails, web pages, memos, call center transcripts, survey responses, claims notes, legal cases, patent descriptions, research articles, and incident reports – all hold valuable pieces of knowledge that are hard to discover because they are hidden within large volumes of raw data or structured datasets not typically indexed for key term searching.  Overwhelmed by the glut and variety of data, law firms and corporations are seeking new methods to analyze large volumes of structured and unstructured data to not only discover key knowledge, but to create case or review strategy as well.

Automated Knowledge Discovery & E-Discovery Text Analytics

Automated Knowledge Discovery (“AKD”) is our service that derives knowledge from text and structured data, including XML files, databases, spreadsheets, web sites, documents, and emails using Natural Language Processing, Machine Learning, Interactive Visualization and Report Generation.  AKD enables you to gain valuable insight into large diverse data sets by leveraging intelligent data mining and analysis tools to undertake a range of knowledge discovery tasks, including:

Data Source Integration

  • XML Files
  • Spreadsheets
  • Email / PST Files / Exchange Datastores
  • File Shares
  • Databases
  • Delimited Files
  • RSS Feeds
  • Web Sites

Distinct Text Identification 

Compares records to determine whether they are duplicates, though comparison is fuzzy in the sense that the two values do not have to be 100% identical in content and form.  Similar to “near duplicate indentication”.

Key Term Linking

Generates a visualization of associations between various keywords so that that relationships between words are well-represented in a set of documents or a column of text values.

Text Clustering

Utilizes phrases find and identify similar groups of documents or records based on the contents of text.

Entity Extraction

  • Dates
  • Human names
  • Organizations
  • Addresses
  • Phones
  • Money Amount
  • Geographic Names

Keyword Extraction

Determines the important concepts discussed in a text via the identification the most frequent keywords and the ability to drill down on each keywords to see how the words are being mentioned.

Phrase Extraction

Statistical determination of phrases by examining the co-occurrences of consecutive words within the text. Stated more simply, if two words occur next to each other repeatedly in several sentences across several documents, it can be statistically assumed that these words constitute a phrase.

Link Analysis

Displays correlations and clusters of terms extracted from a set of documents or text values with the ability to drill down to review the specific relationships.

Complex Searching

Searches for phrases, proximity, by sentence or paragraph, synonyms and alternate term forms and enables the ability to see a ranked list of matching records, search within the results of previous searches, refine search query by providing positive and negative document-based relevance feedback, and  the highlighting of occurrences of words in documents for easy navigation.

Our Automated Knowledge Discovery Services provide valuable insight to any collection of discovery data, far beyond key term browsing typically associated with litigation support systems, many of which simply do not have the ability to process structured data such as SQL databases or “as found” versions of email stores.  Additional benefits of AKD Services include:

  • Mobile platform deployable worldwide
  • Fee structure based on time, not volume
  • No long term commitments, user fees or storage fees
  • Compliments, not replaces, current review workflows and systems
  • Ideal platform for data sampling

aw Firms and Corporations interested in learning more about Automated Discovery Services should call +1.888.690.DATA (3282), email info@globaledd.com, or visit http://www.globaleddgroup.com/Data-Analytics/Automated-Knowledge-Discovery.html for additional information. Global EDD Group also provides these services under subcontract to other industry vendors and service providers.

Enhanced by Zemanta
LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

The Sedona Conference® Issues “International Principles on Discovery, Disclosure & Data Protection” : Electronic Discovery Law

In December, the Sedona Conference® made available its latest publication, International Principles on Discovery, Disclosure & Data Protection: Best Practices, Recommendations & Principles for Addressing the Preservation & Discovery of Protected Data in U.S. Litigation (Public Comment Version).  Among the information included are six Principles and attendant commentary as well as a model protective order and a “model data process and transfer protocol for use by parties and courts to better protect litigation-related data subject to data protection laws within the ambit of traditional U.S. litigation and court discovery practices.”

via The Sedona Conference® Issues “International Principles on Discovery, Disclosure & Data Protection” : Electronic Discovery Law.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

The “American Rule” Rules: Court Declines to Compel Defendants to Share Cost of Plaintiffs’ Subpoena : Electronic Discovery Law

Last Atlantis Capital LLC v. AGS Specialist Partners, No. 04 C 0397, 2011 WL 6097769 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2011)

In this case, Plaintiffs proposed that Defendants share in the cost of obtaining data that Plaintiffs subpoenaed.  Obtaining the information at issue was described by the court as “the linchpin of this entire matter.”  Moreover, the court had suggested (at a status conference) that it would be “reasonable” for Defendants to aid in half the costs.  However, Defendants “steadfastly maintained that they ha[d] no independent need for the information, except for rebuttal purposes” and objected strongly to the proposed cost-sharing on the grounds that there was “neither reason nor precedent” for it.  Noting that “the time to take definitive stance on the issue ha[d] arrived,” the court agreed.

via The “American Rule” Rules: Court Declines to Compel Defendants to Share Cost of Plaintiffs’ Subpoena : Electronic Discovery Law.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Court Grants Cross Motions for Spoliation Sanctions, Imposes Adverse Inference Against Both Parties : Electronic Discovery Law

Patel v. Havana Bar, Restaurant & Catering, No. 10-1383, 2011 WL 6029983 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2011)

In this opinion addressing the parties’ cross motions for sanctions, the court ordered an adverse inference for defendants’ failure to preserve relevant video surveillance footage and an adverse inference for plaintiff’s failure to preserve relevant witness statements.  For plaintiff’s other discovery violations, including delayed and piecemeal production of witness statements and failure to timely produce a full copy of the relevant police report, as well as for the spoliation of witness statements, the court ordered re-deposition of several witnesses at plaintiff’s expense.  The court also awarded defendants’ attorneys fees and costs “for the time and effort they expended in attempting to obtain discovery that they were entitled to receive.”

Plaintiff was injured when he “fell” from a second story balcony/loft at defendants’ bar and restaurant. Whether plaintiff fell or jumped was apparently in dispute.  There was also a question as to whether plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of his “fall.”

Defendants recorded video surveillance near the time of plaintiff’s fall which was viewed by the restaurant owner on the night of the accident.  He claimed the video did not reveal how the fall occurred. At deposition, the owner explained that he had attempted to copy the video but was unable, despite a call to the system’s provider.  He further stated that although the system could print still images, he did not print any.  Thus, the video was automatically recorded over and no footage was preserved.  The court found that spoliation had occurred.  Accordingly, following its identification of the relevant considerations and after noting that “even ‘negligent destruction of relevant evidence can be sufficient to give rise to the spoliation inference,” the court ordered an adverse inference instruction.

via Court Grants Cross Motions for Spoliation Sanctions, Imposes Adverse Inference Against Both Parties : Electronic Discovery Law.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Data Mapping Services for Electronic Discovery & Information Governance

Quite often technology staff and legal teams do not have a clear picture of the data contained on corporate servers beyond gross volumes and which staff or teams have access to the environment.  Techicians from Global EDD Group are able to analyze custodian computers and network servers while they are online, capturing key data points with minimal impact to business operations.

This analysis enables Global EDD Group to compose detailed statistics and reports that provide valuable knowledge regarding the contents of each computer or server.  In turn, This knowledge enables legal teams to selectively prioritize specific data points, identify potential issues and exclude specific data types very early in the discovery process.  This service is also quite useful with large volumes of unstructured data that is stored offline on hard drives and NAS devices.

The following outlines the statistics, reports and charts/graphs that Global EDD Group is able to generate during the Data Mapping process:

Statistics

◊  Number of Directories

◊  Name of Each Directory

◊  Size of Each Directory

◊  Last Access Date

◊  Directory Owner

◊  Path Length

◊  Number of Files

◊  Largest Files

◊  Age of Files

◊  File Extensions

◊  File Extension Type Groupings

◊  MD5 Checksums

Reports

◊  Dynamic Directory Structure (XML)

◊  Detailed Content Summary (Database, XML, Spreadsheet, Text File, HTML)

◊  File Extension Summary (Spreadsheet, Text)

◊  User Summary (Spreadsheet, Text)

◊  Largest Files (Spreadsheet, Text)

Charts / Graphs

◊  Contents

◊  Size

◊  File Extension

◊  Distribution

◊  User

◊  Age

via Data Mapping | Data Knowledge | Services.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare