One trend bubbling up recently is the need to control social networking content (e.g. Twitter, FaceBook, and LinkedIn) for compliance and/or eDiscovery requirements. The stories indicating this trend come from both the solutions side and the real-word side of things.
In some further eDiscovery market shifting, Kroll Inc was acquired by Altegrity this week. Kroll’s Ontrack division is one of the leading providers of eDiscovery solutions. It’s no secret that Kroll was for sale (it wasn’t a great fit with parent company Marsh McLennen) and that the price was lower than shareholders would have liked. Most of the pundits out there seem to think that Altegrity is a good landing spot for Kroll. I don’t disagree, but I do wonder what the future holds for Kroll Ontrack, specifically.
There is more news of market consolidation with the announcement that Autonomy will buy CA’s Information Governance division. CA slowly built the IG group with the purchase of iLumin in 2005 and then MDY in 2006. That gave CA the archiving and records management capabilities necessary to have the information governance foundation. Sadly, CA was just never the right fit and the information governance message was perhaps a little bit ahead of its time. Autonomy, meanwhile, doubled-down on eDiscovery with laser focus and has emerged as one of the most successful companies in the industry due to that commitment. It now has even stronger records management capabilities, even if it also has to deal with supporting a lot of duplicate technology.
GM has been asked to preserve all electronic communications instead of deleting them in accordance with its 60-day retention policy. A 60-day retention policy with no backup program in place is just another example of companies instituting retention programs that don't help the business and that virtually ignore good eDiscovery practices.
AccessData announced it will merge with CT Summation to form a single company, AccessData Group, LLC. The goal of merging the two companies is to deliver a solution capable of addressing all phases of the EDRM model. While the newly formed solution will touch the full spectrum of the EDRM, AccessData Group will face stiff competition from best-of-breed point solution providers, as well as larger enterprise software vendors, in a market where corporations are not necessarily decided on whether an integrated solution or a point solution is the right choice.
Yesterday I was the guest speaker for the monthly meeting of Houston Association of Litigation Support Managers (HALSM). When we polled for topics of interest, the first request concerned how to position and explain the value and role of outside service providers to attorneys at the law firm or corporate legal department. The recent economic downturn put pressure on litigation support staff everywhere to do more with less. Management are asking hard questions like, “Why do we need vendors if we have you?” Or worse, “If we have to use a vendor, why do we need you?” We had the highest HALSM meeting attendance in memory with 25-30 folks packed into a large conference room for the lively discussion.
Everyone talks about the ‘explosive growth’ of discovery collections. Every once in a while we get a glimpse behind the curtain at the sheer size and complexity of large matters. Browning Marean posed a question to the EDRM Search project that resulting in my wasting an entire afternoon dissecting the 511 page examiner’s report from In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation, 08-cv-05523, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). Now I do love to geek out on metrics of all kinds, but what drives me is trying to understand the impact of numbers in context. In this case, we get to see the actual search criteria created by 20 Jenner & Block attorneys to find everything related to the downfall of the investment firm.
My very first Journal entry, The Myth of Custodial Selection, explored the very real discrepancy between what your designated custodians think might be relevant and reality. Now the Delaware ruling of Roffe v. Eagle Rock Energy GP, et al., C.A. No. 5258-VCL (Del. Ch. Apr. 8, 2010) seems to assert that custodian self-collection is inadequate and all collection must be done under the direct supervision of counsel. Barry Murphy tackled some of the potential implications and solutions in his article on Standardized Collection Workflows. I would like to assert the need for technology to enable custodial self collection or ‘custodial designation’ as an integral part of any preservation and collection effort. In my recent examinations of Enterprise Desktop Collection, Self Collection is the first and dominant methodology outlined. That is because even if you do a full forensic image of every desktop, I believe that you are still obligated to interview key custodians and ask them for relevant ESI. No one wants to try and explain why a reviewer missed a key document that your star witness knew was the smoking gun.
In Part 1, we explored the basic methods of collecting from desktops in the large enterprise environment. The recent Delaware ruling of Roffe v. Eagle Rock provided a good context to discuss the potential pitfalls and necessity of custodial self-designation of potential evidence. That brings us around to the lowest risk/highest effort method, full forensic images of desktops. I want to be very careful here to differentiate a bit-by-bit image of the physical drive from the more commonly used ‘forensically sound copy’. A forensic image captures every one or zero across the entirety of the physical drive. This means that an 80 GB laptop drive will have an 80 GB forensic image, even if there are only 20 GB of files on it. A ‘forensically sound copy’ uses the operating system to capture the content (Hash verified) and the context (OS metadata) of selective active or deleted files. Now that we have made that clear, we can move on to enterprise forensic collection, which I am taking to mean the ability to collect a full forensic image without having to physically attach a write-block device.
The Daegis acquisition by Unify caught my attention this morning as I was coding the latest batch of news and blogs from the eDJ search engine. After the 2009 slump, I expect to see a string of consolidation and acquisition within the eDiscovery market. Knowing some of the talented folks at Daegis (including some of the best of SPI), I did not expect them to be acquired for a 1.5 multiplier. That was a shocker. Daegis reported $24 million in revenue with a healthy 27% profit for fiscal 2009. That was pretty good for last year. So why did they accept $38 million in cash, notes and stock? They are advertising it as a merger and taking the Daegis name, which indicates that they are going after the corporate eDiscovery market as opposed to the corporate archive or database support market. If that seems confusing, consider that Unify specializes in database management and migration software. Unify acquired AXS-One for $8 million in stock last June. AXS-One seemed to be struggling in the archiving market, which has been consolidating for a while.