Perspective on the Pippins v KPMG

by Greg Harris

Matters like Pippins v. KPMG LLP, —F.R.D.—, 2012 WL 370321 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012) provide a unique opportunity to discuss eDiscovery, and many of the considerations involved. How do the seven Zubulake factors apply? How much data constitutes an undue burden? Can predictive coding be trusted, and at what point is human interaction required for review? Who is going to do all of the work? These are only a few of the questions brought to light by this matter. Though the Pippins case alone does not resolve any of these questions, it does offer a platform for discussion.

How to Create an eDiscovery Team that Works for your Organization

by Amber Scorah

With budget constraints and reduced internal staffing putting pressure on in-house corporate departments that analyze and make decisions on an ever-increasing pool of potentially discoverable material, creating a solid in-house eDiscovery team is a big challenge.

Even so, there are ways to leverage your current corporate organization structure to create a solid in-house eDiscovery team. In part one of this two part article, we offer some good strategies for getting multi-department collaboration, and advice on how to determine which eDiscovery procedures are more effectively and economically handled internally.

Does Anyone Still Think About Pricing in eDiscovery

by Jason Velasco

Most of the conversation these days in the eDiscovery arena has been around Predictive Coding, the Cloud, and Big Data topics, so I wanted to bring us back to one of the basic issues in the eDiscovery marketplace…pricing. The Predictive Coding/Technology Assisted Review (PC-TAR) makes the world a bit fuzzier as it blends the processing and review components closer together.  I’m sure many vendors long for the days when the going price to process (extract the meta-data and text) and create a TIFF was $2500 per GB (uncompressed).  The process was simple back then…process and TIFF the data…load it up into a review platform and let the attorneys review to their hearts content (Excel files notwithstanding).  Even when we developed the technology to apply search terms to the data set, the price was based on how much data went into [...]

The Honorable Andrew J. Peck on the Record with Predictive Coding: Early Headlines Get it Wrong!

by Mikki Tomlinson

As hinted to be forthcoming during the LTNY Man vs. Machine: The Promise/Challenge of Predictive Coding & Other Disruptive Technologies session, The Honorable Andrew J. Peck, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York, is now on record on the topic of Predictive Coding – Technology Assisted Review (“PC-TAR”) in the Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe et al. case.  Word of the ruling traveled quickly throughout the eDiscovery blogosphere early yesterday.  But the headlines got it wrong! Early reports claimed that Judge Peck ordered the use of PC-TAR.  Unfortunately, it appears that claim stuck as evidenced by the many bloggers that have reported the same information.  But it is wrong!  The ruling is in no way a mandate or an order to use PC-TAR. The parties in the Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe et al. [...]

Don’t Create a Failed eDiscovery Police State – Why Programs Work Better than Policies

by Amber Scorah

Policies are like laws… we need them, they give structure.  But policies tend to be reactive, just like law enforcement. Take, for example, the war on drugs.  Passing drug laws alone isn’t enough – we have programs in schools to teach kids, communities offer programs to help people get off drugs.  This is, of course, because knowing what one is supposed to do sometimes isn’t enough to make a person comply. On the other hand, creating a living, breathing program brings your policies to life and creates a living, breathing culture of compliance.  How can you do this in an eDiscovery context? How do you do this in an eDiscovery context? “Creating a culture of compliance” One definition of culture is: “the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular group.” This implies that a culture is created by the behaviors [...]

The eDiscoveryJournal Continues to Add Contributors

by Jason Velasco

The eDiscoveryJournal has been growing in both readership and content over the past few months (thank you to all of our wonderful readers).  Our goal is to provide as much possible insight on the issues and trends related to the eDiscovery and Information Governance spaces.  In order to expand that insight, we have three more independent contributors to the eDiscoveryJournal family that I’m proud to announce. Chuck Rothman is the Director of eDiscovery Services at Wortzman Nickle in Toronto where he provides technical oriented advice related to litigation and records management, with a premium on identifying risks and solutions related to the storage and retrieval of electronic information.  Chuck is a recognized expert in both electronic discovery and computer forensics in Canada and the U.S., and a frequent lecturer at Canadian e-discovery conferences. He has authored numerous articles, co-authored “Electronic [...]

eDiscovery Ethics – Using Our Superpowers Responsibly

by Greg Buckles

Behind our firewall, eDJ has a custom Google search engine based on the top 1,000+ eDiscovery related sites and search terms. I was ‘working’ on this engine over the weekend, as we all know that relevance is a moving target and searches must be optimized to stay relevant. A strange headline from my local paper caught my eye, “Falkenberg: Housing authority’s snoop had eye on others” from the Houston Chronicle. A quick scan revealed that the local county housing authority hired an eDiscovery service provider, Pathway Forensics, to make an open records request for emails, phone records and credit card statements of the local county judge and his staff. That same county judge has questioned recent large salary adjustments and pet projects of the housing authority’s top officials. The short article explains the almost comic plot to get some kind of dirt on an elected official who is trying to mind the public coffers. More relevant to our eDiscovery community is the questionable role that an eDiscovery service provider plays in this comedy of errors.

An Interview with The Honorable Andrew J. Peck – Part Two

by Mikki Tomlinson

It has been stated over and over in discussions around PC-TAR, that it is imperative to have a well-defined workflow that includes solid processes for purposes of defensibility (e.g., sampling, documentation). In Part One I pointed out that we had these same conversations around acceptable, defensible practices when using key terms and all human review. Yet, there are still a number of practitioners that are not making use of solid, defensible practices. For example, I continue to see attorneys blindly selecting key terms and proceed directly to process, review, and production with no sampling and minimal documentation along the way. My question, then, remains whether the discussions surrounding PC-TAR will prompt practitioners to employ better practices no matter what method of collection/search/review is. Or, will we maintain the status quo: those that understand the need for and importance of solid processes and project management, and those that don’t?