Human Element Critical to Computer-Aided E-Discovery | Law Technology News (Sean Doherty)

It wasn’t long ago that Thomson Reuters’ Westlaw Next initiative reminded me that the human element in computer-aided legal research is the key to accomplishing client goals. As with legal research, humans are the bellwethers and heavyweights in computer-aided e-discovery, despite the relentless buzz around predictive coding, technology-assisted review, and even attorney-less review — buzz that implies computers will replace humans in e-discovery tasks, from collection to review. As the Big Data for e-discovery keeps getting bigger, humans are key in managing discovery in litigation and responsible for delivering results to clients, not computers and technology.

If computers can beat chess and Jeopardy champions, then they will soon take over other aspects of our lives from driving cars, such as in Nevada, to reviewing documents in litigation. Although my reasoning is invalid, it’s important to note that Nevada opened its highways to robot (computer-driven) vehicles, not its urban areas. To date, the New York and Boston metropolitan areas have not followed Nevada’s lead because driving in unpredictable and heavy traffic is not for robots or computers alone. And like heavy traffic, complex e-discovery is not for computers alone, but they can help humans make it more efficient and cost-effective.

via Human Element Critical to Computer-Aided E-Discovery.

Podcast: E-discovery Preservation: Reset to Neutral | Legal Talk Network

The landmark Zubulake e-discovery decisions were the first of many to transform a narrow duty not to spoliate into a much broader duty to affirmatively preserve all possibly relevant evidence when there exists a “reasonable anticipation of litigation.”  But have these judicial opinions gone too far? In the December edition of Law Technology Now, Robert Owen, a partner at Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, says it’s time to shift gears and restore the balance. He talks with Monica Bay, editor-in-chief of Law Technology News, about his five proposed rules that he says will prevent substantial injustices, yet be comprehensive and comprehensible.

Listen Here

via E-discovery Preservation: Reset to Neutral | Legal Talk Network.

A Growing Trend: Use of E-Discovery ‘Special Masters’ | Law Technology News

The use of e-discovery “special masters” — who help parties frame and execute the discovery of electronically stored information — is a growing trend. At last week’s Georgetown Law Advanced eDiscovery Institute, there were podium discussions about court-related pilot programs as well as informal conversations among attendees about the new job opportunities.

On a Friday panel, Judge Joy Conti of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania outlined a pilot project in progress to help ligitants identify and use special masters. Conti, who chairs the court’s Alternate Dispute Resolution Implementation Committee, said the court decided to create a list of approved special masters. Finalists were selected for the one year pilot effort, that began in May, she explained.

Acccording to the court’s website, a subcommittee, led by Judge Nora Fischer, and including court IT personnel and local practitioners with EDD experience, provided recommendations to the ADR committee, ultimately resulting in approved application and selection criteria. “The final set of criteria approved by the ADR Committee includes active bar admission; demonstrated litigation experience, particularly with electronic discovery; demonstrated training and experience with computers and technology; and mediation training and experience.”

via A Growing Trend: Use of E-Discovery ‘Special Masters’.

E-Discovery Pricing Strikes Back | Law Technology News

A COLLECTION OF COMMENTS

“Count me in for such a discussion. The inflation in vendor models is preposterous and untenable,” wrote attorney Benjamin Semel, of Pryor Cashman, in New York. “There’s a disconnect right now between vendor pricing, firm needs and client limits. Vendor pricing models may work for very small cases, but are ridiculous and untenable for larger cases.”

Semel elaborated: “Clients simply will not stand (nor should they) for six-figure discovery bills from vendors. And vendors are well aware of this – the response to ‘How much does it cost?’ is often something along the lines of ‘How much have you got?’ The softness in vendor pricing also means that knowledgeable firms are now negotiating prices to less than a quarter of what uninformed firms pay, and firms that bring processes in house offer clients even larger savings. This game cannot last much longer. I expect that vendor models will collapse soon, or else vendors will price themselves out of the market, firms will bring e-discovery processes in house, and many current vendor tech employees will become lit support employees at firms.”

Another lawyer, an AmLaw 100 firm e-discovery practice director who asked not to be identified, stated things more succinctly: “I’ve been trying to expose the false pricing market in EDD … for years.”

John Rowley, a senior consultant for enterprise legal management at Datacert, gave his perspective. “Really enjoyed your piece. I’ve had endless discussions with litigation support managers about vague pricing from their e-discovery vendors and trying to compare apples-to-oranges pricing,” he said.

via E-Discovery Pricing Strikes Back.

The Dark Side of E-Discovery Pricing | Law Technology News

Does the ‘e’ in e-discovery have to stand for expensive?

E-discovery in a start-to-finish case can easily cost more than $100,000, as noted by David Degnan earlier this year and further explained by Bob Ambrogi.

Last week, a significant e-discovery company contacted me to offer an interview on this subject. Its CEO wanted to discuss why customers should be wary of low-cost e-discovery offers. When that company’s media representative emailed me, her subject line was, “The culprits cheapening the eDiscovery industry,” and her message strongly pushed fear, uncertainty, and doubt about decreasing costs.

Rather than her client lowering its own prices, she wrote, “[The CEO] believes people don’t understand how e-discovery is priced or why it costs so much. This trend of price reduction will negatively effect the quality of the discovery process, encourage poor results and further cloud the visibility and understanding of the pricing structure behind the discovery process. … Yes, the e-discovery process can be expensive but if you reduce the cost or offer free services you will jeopardize the quality and it will cost clients more in the long run.”

However, when I asked if the CEO would disclose his own company’s prices, she said no. I declined the interview on grounds of disingenuity. It would have been like interviewing a political candidate who critiqued his opposition yet refused to say where he stands.

Unfortunately, vendors being vague about pricing is the norm, not the exception. The majority of times when I interview companies about their legal technology products, and ask what about costs, they answer, “It depends,” followed by numerous reasons why — some valid, some not. But at least half of the time they do tell me the approximate typical cost, lest customers (and reporters) assume that non-answers mean it’s very expensive.

via The Dark Side of E-Discovery Pricing.

Podcast: Sham Exam? The Controversy over E-Discovery Certification | Legal Talk Network

Providers are now offering certification courses and tests for e-discovery workers. Critics charge that the programs target the most vulnerable members of the legal community, advocates say they are a step in the right direction to provide better education and standards.  On the August edition of Law Technology Now, host Monica Bay (editor of Law Technology News) discusses the controversy with attorneys Patrick Oot, of Washington, D.C.’s eDiscovery Institute, and Albert Barsocchini, a San Francisco-based e-discovery consultant.

via Sham Exam? The Controversy over E-Discovery Certification | Legal Talk Network.

E-Mail Isn’t as Ethereal as You Might Think | Law Technology News

E-mail is simple. But because there’s so much of it in so many different locations, and because enterprise e-mail resides in complex database environments integrating layer-on-layer of useful metadata, it’s easy to lose sight of e-mail’s inherent simplicity.

An e-mail is as simple as a postcard. Like the back left side of a postcard, an e-mail has an area called the message body reserved for the user’s text message. Like a postcard’s back right side, another area called the message header is dedicated to information needed to get the card where it’s supposed to go and transit data akin to a postmark.

We can liken the picture or drawing on the front of our postcard to an e-mail’s attachment. Unlike a postcard, an e-mail’s attachment must be converted to letters and numbers for transmission, enabling an e-mail to carry any type of electronic data — audio, documents, software, video — not just pretty pictures.

The essential point is that everything in any e-mail is plain text no matter what was transmitted.

And by plain text, I mean the plainest English text, called 7-bit ASCII in geek speak, lacking even the diacritical characters required for accented words in French or Spanish. It is text so simple any letter can be stored in a single byte of data.

The dogged adherence to plain English text stems in part from the universal use of the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol or SMTP to transmit e-mail.

via Law.com – E-Mail Isn’t as Ethereal as You Might Think.

Climbing Back – Consultants George Socha and Tom Gelbmann highlight key trends they identified in their annual e-discovery survey | Law Technology News

In the world of electronic data discovery, 2009 was a year to refocus, with providers and consumers shifting away from review and moving toward information management and analysis. And while money wasn’t pouring in like the apex years, revenue is climbing back, with a steady if modest growth.

More than anything else, those are the lessons learned from our seventh annual review of the industry, The 2010 Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey.

We are definitely starting to see the maturation of the electronic data discovery market. The good news: prospects are bright for law firms and EDD providers that focus on helping clients address e-discovery challenges efficiently, with an eye to early understanding of electronically stored information and what it means to the matter at hand.

The future is dim, however, for those who seek only to treat the symptoms, pursuing short-term, reactionary, just-make-it-go-away approaches. It’s also murky for those who continue to insist that the way they addressed EDD three years ago still works fine today.

via Climbing Back.

How the Miracle of E-Mail Works | Law Technology News

What you see when you open a message in Outlook or Gmail isn’t just a snapshot of what someone sent to you. It’s a report. It’s generated by an invisible query and built of select fields of information culled from a complex dataset, then presented to you in an arrangement determined by your e-mail client’s capabilities and user settings.

Dude, your e-mails are a database, and so are mine … and his … and hers. Epic.

And for most corporate e-mail users, their messages and attachments implicate at least two databases: the big one housed on a server and storing e-mail records for many users, and smaller, local counterparts residing on employees’ desktop computers, laptops, cell phones, iPads and other e-mail client devices.

E-MAIL DATA AND METADATA

E-mail databases do more than simply store and transmit messages and attachments; they add information, too.

When a user opens a message, his or her e-mail client changes the message’s appearance to indicate it’s been read. When the user flags a message for follow-up, moves messages to folders or deletes certain items, the e-mail client records these changes as data about data, i.e., metadata.

This metadata, and pieces of information transmitted within the messages, are fields in a database that collectively comprise records users query to display what they see onscreen as e-mail messages.

Users rarely see all of the metadata that an e-mail server or local client stores about messages. Instead, they’re given a nicely formatted presentation of just the data and metadata their e-mail client software is configured to display. That is, they see the fields in the default “report” that the message database writes to the screen. But, it’s easy to see more — much more.

via Law.com – How the Miracle of E-Mail Works.

Don’t Box ECA – Early case assessment precedes e-discovery | Law Technology News

The latest electronic data discovery buzz phrase is most definitely “early case assessment.” But if you examine the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (www.edrm.net), which offers guidelines and standards for e-discovery consumers and providers, you will search in vain for a box entitled ECA.

By not including one, have we missed a crucial step in the e-discovery process?

No. In our opinion, the term early case assessment is misapplied in the e-discovery context. While ECA can — and often should — address e-discovery issues, early case assessment sweeps much more broadly. To the extent ECA connects with e-discovery, the EDRM diagram already accommodates it.

[continued] Don’t Box ECA.