Essays

In some ways I feel like I missed out on parts of Legal Tech NY 2011. My focus this year was to fit in as many roadmap briefings as possible. The sheer scale and audience focus of LTNY has forced providers to plan major product releases and announcements around the show. Product managers would ask me, “Didn’t you see our press release?” Even if I saw it, there were so many in the eDJ search queue that I could not remember them all. So instead of keynotes, sessions, panels or even the exhibition floor, I spent virtually all of my time hearing about the very latest products, features and where the providers think that eDisovery is going this year. With so many briefings, I am going to stick to short summaries and high points. There were quite a few providers who did not have a coherent message or any new functionality significant enough to mention. On with the fun.

Continuing my high level take-aways from my roadmap briefings at LegalTech NY 2011. Predictive coding was one of the hot topics at this show, but it seemed to mean something different to every provider. There is enough confusion around the issue to merit a solid research topic for eDJ in the upcoming months. I know that The eDiscovery Institute is looking to do a comparative research project on predictive coding in 2011-2012, so we can look forward to some hard numbers going into next year from them. On to the provider updates:

We did a lot of roadmap briefings in New York. This should wrap up the companies that I felt had something interesting to present. Wave software recently acquired the solo product, iFramework, to add legal hold notices and matter workflow to Trident. The new Wave Software Solution platform should be able to better manage and synchronize multiple sites. Wave is in line with the hold management trend that emerged at the show for platforms looking to add easy functionality. AccessData and Guidance are examples of collection platforms that have added legal hold notices to their latest releases. Returning to Wave, they continue to sell primarily to firms, but say that they are starting to make consistent sales growth to corporations. Wave is betting on the decline of Tiffs and is ‘staying native’ for the time being.

The hope is that 2011 is a watershed year in our industry. We plan to be there, writing about things that matter most to eDiscovery professionals. That’s why we need your feedback on the research we have underway. Let us know if the topics matter to you, or if there are topics we’re missing that you would like to see research on

One of the things we do as analysts is take inquiries from readers, typically either in a half hour call or via an email response. Recently, a good inquiry came in, but there was no contact information to send an answer to, so I thought it would be a good idea to answer it here (with the hope that the answer gets to the person that had the question). The question read, “If we have a corporate email solution that strips attachments from emails and replaces them with download links, what are our e-discovery responsibilities? Do we need to be able to produce the attachment, or just the email with the links?”

As eDiscovery transitions from fire drill to business process, corporations and law firms are struggling to measure and manage the time and cost associated with the EDRM lifecycle. Up to this point, we have only had ONE standardized billing code in the ABA’s Uniform Task-Based Management System (UTBMS) litigation codes, L390 Other Discovery to be exact. Last year, the Legal Electronic Data Exchange Standard Oversight Committee (LEDES) reached out to the EDRM Metrics Project to participate in the formation of a revised set of new L600 series UTBMS eDiscovery billing codes. The draft code set has been posted to the LEDES site for comments until May 2nd. I highly encourage you to review the new codes and to contribute your perspective.

We are pleased to announce that independent eDiscovery counsel and consultant Kevin Esposito will now be contributing blogs as an eDJ Expert. For those of you who have enjoyed listening to his unique presentation style at conferences, EDRM Committees, Sedona and other eDiscovery gatherings, we know that you will continue to enjoy his direct and uncompromising perspective. Kevin brings with him over 12 years of eDiscovery experience, having managed the litigation support and IT infrastructure operations within global Fortune 50 corporations. While on the corporate side of the house, he became well known for his technology leadership in the logistics world and his efforts at redefining litigation support processes in the pharmaceutical industry. For the past five years, however, clients in those areas as well as the manufacturing, financial services and entertainment sectors have been quietly relying on his operational and legal guidance as an independent discovery counsel. He has forged a unique niche by helping companies and law firms to meet their joint discovery obligations by combining the talents of the client, support vendors large and small and the judicious application of many of the popular litigation support tools and technologies. He and his team have learned how to help companies safely and successfully negotiate the eDiscovery minefield through their daily contact with vendors, staffing groups and technology suppliers. He will assist our eDJ readers by providing a pragmatic view of issues large and small, both legal and personal. I have had the pleasure of partnering with Kevin on consulting engagements covering litigation system audits, RFP generation and management and eDiscovery/Records Retention lifecycle projects. He brings both operational experience and a slightly different personal focus to our blogs and research papers. Kevin can be reached here at Kevin@ediscoveryjournal.com. We hope you that you enjoy his contributions.

One of the challenges in the eDiscovery market is the need for organizations to keep best practices to themselves. There are few organizations willing to publicly share the details of eDiscovery programs. True, one of the reasons for this is the fact that most eDiscovery programs are very immature. But, the primary reason is risk control – there is very little benefit to going public with eDiscovery practices and a lot of downside (e.g. losing the ability to argue undue burden because the whole world knows about your search capabilities). Thus, I was very happy when I found someone from a top telecomm company willing to share some lessons learned (while I can’t share name or company name, I can share some very interesting knowledge nuggets)

Everyone knows how to send an email and Blind Carbon Copy (BCC) certain recipients separately from your public TO/CC recipients. I responded to a recent question on the Yahoo! LitSupport list regarding the best practices for production of email with BCC information. My response kicked off several offline questions about the actual nature of BCC information, preservation of such information and deduplication of email with/without BCC recipients. I have had to wrestle with this from an audit and a product development perspective several times, but it seems worthwhile to try to write a decent overview of BCC and eDiscovery.

Greetings to all of the readers of the eDiscoveryJournal. I’m pleased to join you as the newest correspondent and hope that you will find that what l share in this forum is useful. Now that I’m here, I’m sure some of you are wondering, “Just what is an independent consultant going to share?" Some may suspect that there will be a dry recitation of product reviews and hardware specs. Some may worry that I’m going to belabor yet again subjects such as “Are instant messages ‘records’?” And some that have heard me speak in public worry that I might just take off all the safeties and satirize what I see out there in the eDiscovery business world. While the last is the most tempting, I personally hate when the Internet is used to push personal agendas. No dear friends, I intend to do the practical thing and provide you with the “One Thousand Foot View”.