E-Discovery Cost Recovery in the Digital Age | NY Law Journal (H. Christopher Boehning & Daniel J. Toal)

E-discovery is a costly necessity of modern litigation. With the ease of email and network data-storage came a deluge of litigation expenses. But producing parties, who historically have born the majority of these costs, may now find some relief in Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 54(d) provides that “costs — other than attorney’s fees — should be allowed to the prevailing party.” The awardable or “taxable” costs are listed in 28 U.S.C. §1920, and include “[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.” At first glance, this provision might not seem to encompass e-discovery costs. Since an amendment in 2008 that replaced the word “papers” with “any materials,” however, courts uniformly have concluded that §1920 covers at least some e-discovery costs.[FOOTNOTE 1]

The question that remains is what e-discovery costs are recoverable. Courts confronting this question have identified five elements that a party must establish to tax its adversary with e-discovery costs: (1) the party seeking costs must have been the “prevailing party”; (2) the costs must stem from a modern equivalent of “copying”; (3) the costs must have been necessary; (4) the costs must be reasonable; and (5) the costs must be sufficiently documented to support the other elements.

Although these elements provide a useful analytical framework, they provide an uncertain guide as to how courts will actually rule on requests to recover e-discovery costs. Indeed, courts frequently come to inconsistent conclusions regarding seemingly similar requests for costs. Although it remains the case that there are few bright-line rules as to what e-discovery costs are taxable, trends are beginning to emerge in how courts interpret each of these requirements.

via E-Discovery Cost Recovery in the Digital Age.

Breaking Into E-Discovery | ABA Law Practice Today (Sally Kane)

The legal industry is slow to embrace change and adopt new practices.  However, the past two decades have witnessed the dawn of the digital age and, with it, advancements in technology that have reshaped the legal landscape.  This evolving technology and recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have spawned a new and lucrative law practice specialty: electronic discovery.  The e-discovery niche, which combines the legal expertise of attorneys with the technical skills of IT professionals, is one of the fastest growing specialties in the legal industry.

Increasing volumes of electronically stored information (ESI), evolving e-discovery case law, the automation of legal processes, changing ESI protocols and harsher judicial sanctions have fueled the need for e-discovery specialists.  In response to this trend, a growing number of firms are investing in consultative e-discovery talent by establishing dedicated e-discovery practice groups or, in smaller firms, creating the role of an e-discovery attorney.  According to a 2011 survey by The Cowen Group, a legal technology staffing firm, 30% of firms are adding e-discovery attorneys, with an anticipated 150-250 openings at major law firms.

E-discovery attorneys operate under a variety of titles:  electronic discovery advisor, e-discovery counsel, EDD partner, electronic discovery consultant, special counsel, e-discovery specialist, and e-discovery director are a few. Most e-discovery attorneys work in law firms serving corporate clients although a growing number of attorneys are developing niche e-discovery roles within corporations and government agencies. Responsibilities vary according to practice environment and firm size.  Below are a few of the roles the e-discovery attorney may tackle.

via Breaking Into E-Discovery.

Information Governance and Its Impact on Litigation | Corporate Counsel

The amount of information generated by business today is continually increasing—some estimate 1.8 zettabyes of data will be created in 2011. While word processing, social media, and email have made it easier to create information, it remains important to effectively govern that information in order to minimize risk while maintaining the information’s value to the organization. Information governance is important because it allows business to share information more effectively across departments and geography, and prevent the mistakes and wasted energy so often caused by lack of communication and information silos.

While a company cannot typically control the increasing number of lawsuits, audits, and investigations it may face, it can establish parameters around its response to those obligations, minimize the company’s public scrutiny, remain compliant, and reduce business and legal risk, cost, and impact. To that end, it is important to establish guidelines and policies around information governance and leverage technology to help implement those protocols.

What is “information governance”?

Information governance is not a new term or concept, but it has become more important since the 2006 revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which codified that Electronically Stored Information (ESI) is discoverable in litigation. In order for ESI to be properly preserved and retrieved in discovery, it must be properly managed at all times. Information governance is pivotal in this process, which technology research and advisory company Gartner Group defines as “the processes, roles, standards, and metrics that ensure the effective and efficient use of information in enabling an organization to achieve its goals.” Information governance supports business objectives while managing legal risk.

via From the Experts: Information Governance and Its Impact on Litigation.

Podcast: The Future of E-Discovery | Legal Talk Network

What does the future hold when it comes to e-discovery? On Digital Detectives, co-hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. and John W. Simek, Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, welcome John Munro, the Vice President and Managing Director of Orange Legal Technologies, to discuss some upcoming trends in e-discovery.  John explores the future of predictive coding, shares his thoughts on amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, e-discovery in the cloud and the trend toward bringing e-discovery in-house.

Podcast: Play in new window

via The Future of E-Discovery | Legal Talk Network.

Podcast: Controversial Issues in E-Discovery | Legal Talk Network

This has been quite a year of controversy and e-discovery! On Digital Detectives, co-hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. and John W. Simek, Vice President of Sensei Enterprises welcome Ralph Losey, a partner in the law firm of Jackson Lewis and a nationally known expert, author and lecturer on e-discovery, to spotlight some recent controversial issues in e-discovery. Ralph explores issues such as predictive coding, e-discovery certifications, whether we need to amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure again to address e-discovery problems and how to solve the problem of “e-discovery extortion.”

PODCAST

via Controversial Issues in E-Discovery | Legal Talk Network.

Podcast: Controversial Issues in E-Discovery | Legal Talk Network

This has been quite a year of controversy and e-discovery! On Digital Detectives, co-hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. and John W. Simek, Vice President of Sensei Enterprises welcome Ralph Losey, a partner in the law firm of Jackson Lewis and a nationally known expert, author and lecturer on e-discovery, to spotlight some recent controversial issues in e-discovery. Ralph explores issues such as predictive coding, e-discovery certifications, whether we need to amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure again to address e-discovery problems and how to solve the problem of “e-discovery extortion.”

Listen here

via Controversial Issues in E-Discovery | Legal Talk Network.

Tackling E-Discovery In The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure

The landscape of electronic discovery is about to undergo major changes that litigators and judges agree are sorely needed. At meetings on April 4-5 in Austin, Texas, the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (ACCR) decided the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) should be amended to include guidance about the preservation of electronic evidence once litigation is reasonably contemplated or has been filed. Rules about spoliation should also be addressed, the committee noted.

According to Tom Allman, an adjunct professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law whose legal background includes years as general counsel for BASF, the committee ‘wants the federal rules to reflect the reality of the preservation and production of discoverable evidence.’

When the FRCP underwent a major overhaul in 2006, the ACCR did not address the question of preservation of evidence in the technological age. ‘Just since 2006, however, the committee is rethinking its decision not to rule on the matter,’ says Allman, a staunch proponent of progressive rules of civil procedure, and a regular attendee and speaker at conferences and seminars nationwide focusing on electronic discovery. He is also a well-respected mouthpiece for litigators and judges who cannot attend those events personally but want their opinions about e-discovery heard. At the recent ACCR meetings, Allman shared practical comments from both corporate and outside counsel on how the l

via Tackling E-Discovery In The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure.

Experts: E-discovery Might Be Pricey But Oh, So Worth It!

When it comes to e-discovery, it all boils down to being prepared. That’s certainly what Matt Berry, president of Lateral Data, a software development and data processing company, says.

With e-discovery solutions, technology used to collect records and data that can be later used as evidence in a case, preparedness definitely comes more easily. And since courts typically take a dim view of companies that fail to manage their records properly, the impact of e-discovery software can be quite tangible.

‘The availability of e-discovery technology solutions and service providers today has somewhat leveled the e-discovery playing field,’ says Berry. ‘Again, regardless of a company’s size, better preparation equals a better e-discovery outcome.’

Recently, e-discovery has been getting a good deal of attention. As businesses have moved from telephone to email as the prevailing method of communication, vast amounts of data have become available for attorneys seeking information that may support their case. This has led to high demand for e-discovery solutions,which reduce the time it takes to identify and manage information through the process.

‘For any company that will be involved in any type of litigation which will require production of electronic documents, e-discovery plays a very important role,’ adds Berry. ‘A key factor is being prepared, as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require parties to meet and confer early regarding the production and preservation of electronically stored information.’

via Experts: E-discovery Might Be Pricey But Oh, So Worth It!.

Court Orders Production of Backup Tapes Pursuant to Order of Non-Waiver Under Rule 502(d) : Electronic Discovery Law

Radian Asset Assurance, Inc. v. Coll. of the Christian Bros. of New Mexico, 2010 WL 4928866 (D.N.M. Oct. 22, 2010)

Plaintiff opposed the court’s proposal to order defendant’s production of backup tapes pursuant to an order of non-waiver and argued that defendant should have to search and produce its own electronically stored information (“ESI”) and that the burden and cost of doing so should not be shifted to plaintiff.  Rejecting the notion that such an order amounted to cost-shifting and upon finding the ESI “not reasonably accessible,” the court ordered the tapes’ production pursuant to an order under Rule 502(d).*

In the course of discovery, disagreement arose regarding the production of ESI on backup tapes.  The court proposed production of the tapes subject to an order under Rule 502(d) which would preserve defendant’s claims of privilege.  Plaintiff objected, arguing that the defendant “should be required to search its own ESI and produce discoverable materials — just as [plaintiff] did — and that the burden and cost of doing so should not be shifted.”  Specifically, plaintiff argued that “(i) the College should bear its own cost of production; (ii) the College has not met its burden of showing that producing the [ESI on backup tapes] would create an undue burden; (iii) producing the [backup tapes] violates rule 34(b)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (iv) producing all the [backup tapes] amounts to an impermissible “data dump”; and (v) rule 502 is not a cost-shifting tool.”

The court addressed each of plaintiff’s arguments in turn and ultimately rejected each.  Responding to plaintiff’s argument that such an order constituted cost-shifting, the court reasoned that it did not, because defendant would bear the cost of producing the backup tapes and must produce all of its ESI.  The court recognized that by ordering defendant to turn over the tapes unreviewed, it was “in effect forcing [Plaintiff] to bear the costs of that review if it wants certain data,” but reasoned that “[s]uch a protective order is not . . . a traditional cost-shifting order.”

via Court Orders Production of Backup Tapes Pursuant to Order of Non-Waiver Under Rule 502(d) : Electronic Discovery Law.

A lawyer must be a technologist, especially in the e-discovery industry | The Posse List

As we have stated numerous times in our ediscovery/data management “thought leaders” series (click here)  we face a tsunami of data.  For a good discussion of how this all evolved read our interview with the “Master Sensai E-Discovery Gurus” Ralph Losey and Jason R. Baron (click here)  and see their brilliant presentation Did You Know which you can access on YouTube (click here).

Yes, the amount of data is staggering.  As a further recent example, an August survey conducted by Symantec revealed that just backup tapes alone are storing documents on indefinite hold in enterprise libraries that would stretch to the moon and back 13 times with enough left over to circle the globe seven times (for the Symantec survey click here)    And according to the study storing all this data makes it harder to find what you’re looking for. It is now 1,500 times more expensive to review data than it is to store it, Symantec estimates. Backup windows, meanwhile, are so overloaded that weekend backups are taking more than a single weekend these days.

So, with the accelerating increase in electronically stored information along with the changes in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the courts (Federal and state) tsunami of decisions, how do you control and manage the data?  Technology.  As a result, lawyers must become technologists.

And you must become technology savvy if only for the simple reason to increase your abilities, advance your career — in other words propel your personal agenda.

via A lawyer must be a technologist, especially in the e-discovery industry | The Posse List.