presents e-discovery in employment litigation

presents

E-Discovery in Employment LitigationCost-Saving Strategies for Preserving Obtaining and Protecting

presents

Cost-Saving Strategies for Preserving, Obtaining and Protecting Electronically Stored Information

A Live 90-Minute Teleconference/Webinar with Interactive Q&A

Today's panel features:Danuta Bembenista Panich, Shareholder, Ogletree Deakins, Indianapolis

Michael McGuire Shareholder Littler Mendelson Minneapolis

Q&

Michael McGuire, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson, Minneapolis

Thursday, October 7, 2010

The conference begins at:The conference begins at:1 pm Eastern12 pm Central

11 am Mountain10 P ifi10 am Pacific

You can access the audio portion of the conference on the telephone or by using your computer's speakers.Please refer to the dial in/ log in instructions emailed to registrants.

For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by y

• closing the notification box • and typing in the chat box your• and typing in the chat box your

company name and the number of attendeesattendees.

• Then click the blue icon beside the box to sendto send.

For live event onlyFor live event only.

• If you are listening via your computerIf you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and

lit f i t t tiquality of your internet connection.• If the sound quality is not satisfactory and you

li t i i t kare listening via your computer speakers, please dial 1-866-258-2056 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send e p o p ed O e se, p ease se dus a chat or e-mail [email protected] so we can address the problem.

• If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance.

E-Discovery in Employment Liti tiLitigation

Program Sponsor: Strafford

P bli tiPublicationsOctober 7, 2010

Presented By:Donna Panich, Esq.qOgletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

ER

G T

OG

ET

HE

DISCOVERY IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION TENDS TO BE

WO

RK

ING LITIGATION TENDS TO BE

A ONE-WAY STREET

LA

WY

ER

S,

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL

FIRST CLASS SERVICE, COAST TO COAST 5

HAVE THE RULE AMENDMENTS HELPED?E

R American Trial Lawyers Task Force on

G T

OG

ET

HE

Discovery:

WO

RK

ING “The discovery rules in particular are impractical

in that they promote full discovery as a value above almost anything else”

LA

WY

ER

S, above almost anything else

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL



R Cartel Asset Mgt. v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, 2009

G T

OG

ET

HE WL 2242395 (D. Colo. 2009):

“The discovery process necessarily imposes burdens on

WO

RK

ING The discovery process necessarily imposes burdens on

the responding party”

A h i di “ ld ff

LA

WY

ER

S, Argument that certain discovery “would affect our

profitability and ability to serve our clients” was “the e-discovery equivalent of a claim that the ‘sky is falling’”

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL



R 39 % of all recent ESI cases involve spoliation

G T

OG

ET

HE claims

Standards vary

WO

RK

ING Standards vary

Proof of deliberate, bad faith conduct (Fla.) Some evidence of intentional misconduct (Tex.)

LA

WY

ER

S,

Negligence (NY)

Victor Stanley Inc v Creative Pipe Inc (D Md

LO

YE

RS

& L Victor Stanley Inc. v. Creative Pipe Inc. (D. Md.

September 9, 2010)

EM

PL


E-DISCOVERY ACROSS THE STATESE

RG

TO

GE

TH

E W

OR

KIN

GLA

WY

ER

S,

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL


ER

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

G T

OG

ET

HE

A new industry

WO

RK

ING

A new paradigm

LA

WY

ER

S, e pa ad g

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL


ER

G T

OG

ET

HE

WO

RK

ING

LA

WY

ER

S,

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL


KEY PHASES OF DISCOVERYE

R Triggering eventLiti ti bl ti i ti th f

G T

OG

ET

HE

Litigation or reasonable anticipation thereof

SearchId if h i i i

WO

RK

ING Identify the preservation universe in gross

Preserve

LA

WY

ER

S,

Suspend the ordinary disposition or alteration of information

Id tif

LO

YE

RS

& L Identify

Locate responsive/potentially responsive information

EM

PL


KEY PHASES OF DISCOVERYE

R Collect

G T

OG

ET

HE

Take physical custody of responsive/potentially responsive information

WO

RK

ING

Review Multi-pass process to reduce information to responsive &

non-privileged

LA

WY

ER

S,

Produce Process to deliver responsive & non privileged information

LO

YE

RS

& L Process to deliver responsive & non-privileged information

to parties

EM

PL


NON-LINEAR PROCESSE

RG

TO

GE

TH

E W

OR

KIN

GLA

WY

ER

S,

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL


SO HOW DOES INFORMATION MANAGEMENT FIT IN?

ER

MANAGEMENT FIT IN?

Significant feature in preparing for litigation

G T

OG

ET

HE

Helps avert viable spoliation claims Helps reduce ongoing litigation costs

Defensible mechanism for eliminating n sed

WO

RK

ING Defensible mechanism for eliminating unused

information Less information = lower discovery costs

LA

WY

ER

S,

Streamlines identification process

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL


INFORMATION MANAGEMENT HAS ADDED BENEFITS

ER

ADDED BENEFITS

Business needs

G T

OG

ET

HE

Necessary information is available for use Reduces costs of undisciplined storage

Regulatory requirements

WO

RK

ING Regulatory requirements

FLSA & State Wage/Hour FMLA

LA

WY

ER

S,

EEO OSHA/MSHA IRCA

LO

YE

RS

& L

ERISA/COBRA/HIPAA

EM

PL


FEATURES NEEDED TO OPTIMIZE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

ER

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

Data mapping

G T

OG

ET

HE

Adequate infrastructure Clear “use” policies

WO

RK

ING

Communication methods Equipment

Data export and storage

LA

WY

ER

S, Data export and storage

Comprehensive records retention program Record management procedures

LO

YE

RS

& L Record management procedures

Training, review and housecleaning

EM

PL


ADDED OPTIMIZATIONE

R Consider litigation at each step

G T

OG

ET

HE

Centralize storage Build-in preservation solutions

A id d t lif ti

WO

RK

ING Avoid data proliferation

Maintain oversight of application development Include liaison role in IT job description

LA

WY

ER

S, j p

Phillip M. Adams v. Dell, Inc., 2009 WL 910801 (D. Utah 2009)

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL


IDENTIFICATIONE

R Common information requests in employment

G T

OG

ET

HE

litigation Personnel data and “files”

P ll

WO

RK

ING Payroll

Policies and procedures Decisional documentation

LA

WY

ER

S,

Audits, surveys and training Other claims and litigation

LO

YE

RS

& L

Investigatory materials

EM

PL


IDENTIFICATIONE

R Common information requests in employment

G T

OG

ET

HE

litigation (cont’d) that are more troublesome Communications

Person to person (e mail instant messaging tweeting)

WO

RK

ING Person-to-person (e-mail, instant messaging, tweeting)

Mass (web-pages, articles, webinars) Systems and information infrastructure

LA

WY

ER

S,

Hidden or alternative use data

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL


PRESERVATIONE

R Triggering event: “litigation or reasonable anticipation thereof”

G T

OG

ET

HE

What causes “reasonable anticipation”? Charge (Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212

(S.D.N.Y. 2003) (“Zubulake IV”))

WO

RK

ING Demand letter (Goodman v. Praxair Services, Inc., 632

F.Supp.2d 494 (D.Md. 2009); Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 2009 WL 2413631 (D.N.J. 2009))

Internal complaint (Broccoli v Echostar Communications

LA

WY

ER

S, Internal complaint (Broccoli v. Echostar Communications

Corporation, 229 F.R.D. 506 (D.Md. 2005)) Consensus belief (Zubulake IV)

( D ll I )

LO

YE

RS

& L Widespread litigation in industry (Phillip M. Adams v. Dell, Inc.)

EM

PL


PRESERVATIONE

R Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v Banc of America Securities*

G T

OG

ET

HE Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities*—

key components of preservation Written litigation hold

WO

RK

ING

Sent when litigation becomes reasonably foreseeable

Sent to everyone who may have relevant information

LA

WY

ER

S,

Define relevant information broadly

Suspend “auto-delete”

LO

YE

RS

& L

* 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010)

EM

PL


PRESERVATION NOTICESE

R Written

G T

OG

ET

HE

Identify “Key Players”

WO

RK

ING

Include IT

LA

WY

ER

S,

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL



R Content

G T

OG

ET

HE

Nature of claim and summary of allegations Relevant period and whether ongoing Sources and locations of data

WO

RK

ING Sources and locations of data

Types of information sought and definition of relevance

What recipient should do: preserve; collect; notify

LA

WY

ER

S, What recipient should do: preserve; collect; notify

others Methodology for required actions

Accountability

LO

YE

RS

& L Accountability

Certification

EM

PL



R Methodology

G T

OG

ET

HE

Dealing with metadata How to create .pst folders

H t h l d t

WO

RK

ING How to preserve ephemeral data

Using share drives or other shared resources Remote collection

LA

WY

ER

S,

Additional distribution of notices

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL



R Steps after issuance

G T

OG

ET

HE

Track certifications Track compliance

R l tt i ht

WO

RK

ING Regular attorney oversight

Issue reminders Prioritize for collection

LA

WY

ER

S,

Address replacement custodians

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL


PRESERVATIONE

R Automated functions

G T

OG

ET

HE

Auto-delete Size limits

B k

WO

RK

ING Back-up

Suspension of retention period expiration System information

LA

WY

ER

S, System information

Tangential business information Logs and audit trails

LO

YE

RS

& L

g

EM

PL


COLLECTION – DETERMINING METHODOLOGY

ER

METHODOLOGY

Overview of collection methods

G T

OG

ET

HE Overview of collection methods

Forensic Copy: A forensic copy is an exact copy of an entire physical storage media including all active and

WO

RK

ING entire physical storage media including all active and

residual data and unallocated or slack space on the media.

F i ll d A f th bl ibl

LA

WY

ER

S,

Forensically sound: A copy of the reasonably accessible data contained in an information repository pursuant to documented and generally accepted collection methodologies and accomplished using appropriate tools

LO

YE

RS

& L methodologies, and accomplished using appropriate tools.

EM

PL


COLLECTIONE

R

Overview of collection resources

Third-party: relies on a specialty vendor to provide

G T

OG

ET

HE Third-party: relies on a specialty vendor to provide

collection services (either forensic or forensically sound) Company IT: relies on the party’s IT department to

execute on the collection plan; typically party’s IT

WO

RK

ING

p ; yp y p ydepartment is “certified” to collect data

Self/Custodial: relies upon an individual to locate and transfer information from an information repository to the

ti t

LA

WY

ER

S, requesting party

All require involvement of counsel to ensure collection is forensically sound/documented/complete

LO

YE

RS

& L forensically sound/documented/complete

EM

PL


FORENSIC COLLECTIONE

R When is a forensic collection necessary or d i bl ?

G T

OG

ET

HE advisable?

Criminal activity, fraud, or suspected fraud Cases involving information “leakage” (e.g.,

WO

RK

ING Cases involving information leakage (e.g.,

trade secrets, proprietary information, intellectual property, etc.)

Cases alleging a serious violation of a non

LA

WY

ER

S, Cases alleging a serious violation of a non-

compete agreement When authenticity/integrity of information is at

i

LO

YE

RS

& L issue

When required by agreement or court order Central character/special circumstances

EM

PL


Central character/special circumstances

CUSTODIAL SELF-COLLECTIONE

R Some judicial criticism/skepticism expressed

G T

OG

ET

HE j p p

Pension Committee (S.D.N.Y.) Roffe v. Eagle Rock Energy GP (Del. Ch.)

WO

RK

ING

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp. (S.D. Cal.)

LA

WY

ER

S,

Emphasis on counsel’s involvement and oversight

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL


COLLECTION - NOTESE

R The producing party determines the best and most

G T

OG

ET

HE reasonable way to locate relevant information in

discovery “Structured” data (e.g., from HR systems) is typically

WO

RK

ING

( g , y ) yp yprovided through the client as an extract or report

Consider Special Circumstances Proprietary data/database concerns

LA

WY

ER

S, Proprietary data/database concerns

Confidential information or trade secrets Personally Identifiable Information

LO

YE

RS

& L

Limitations on legacy systems Rule 26 “reasonably accessible” considerations

EM

PL


DOCUMENTING CHAIN OF CUSTODYE

R Why document Chain of Custody?

G T

OG

ET

HE

Confirms that the evidence was not altered (authenticity)

WO

RK

ING (authenticity)

Identifies who handled the evidence, why they handled it, and what they did with it

LA

WY

ER

S,

Must be retained by the producing party and made available to other parties upon request

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL


DOCUMENTING CHAIN OF CUSTODYE

R What to include on Chain of Custody?

G T

OG

ET

HE

All the “touch or potential alteration points”

WO

RK

ING

Touch or alternation points include: Collection

LA

WY

ER

S,

Transmission (e.g., Client to attorney, attorney to processing vendor)

When data is “processed” (e.g., scanned, extracted to database etc )

LO

YE

RS

& L database, etc.) When data returned in processed state for production

EM

PL


MAINTAINING CHAIN OF CUSTODYE

R Use appropriate (forensically sound)

G T

OG

ET

HE

pp p ( y )tools and procedures

Maintain metadata

WO

RK

ING

Preserve the information collected and each subsequent winnowed set

LA

WY

ER

S,

Document “search” and data mapping information

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL


SAMPLE CHAIN OF CUSTODYE

RG

TO

GE

TH

E W

OR

KIN

GLA

WY

ER

S,

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL


FINAL COLLECTION NOTESE

R Sampling v. complete collection

G T

OG

ET

HE p g p

Early case assessment tools Document your search and collection

WO

RK

ING y

approach, including locations accessed, data accessed, search results, errors, and

LA

WY

ER

S,

exceptions Consider using a collection tracking log

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL


THANK YOU!E

R

THANK YOU!G

TO

GE

TH

E W

OR

KIN

G

Danuta Bembenista PanichOgletree Deakins Law Firm

LA

WY

ER

S,

[email protected]

LO

YE

RS

& L

EM

PL


EDiscoveryin Employment Litigationin Employment LitigationCost‐Saving Strategies for Preserving, Obtaining and Protecting Electronically Stored Informationg y

Michael J. McGuireMichael J. McGuireShareholder and eDiscovery CounselOctober 7, 2010

Agendag

• Key cost drivers for eDiscovery• Key cost drivers for eDiscovery

• Practical strategies for minimizing highest tcost areas

– Process less

– Review less

– Review Smarter

40

Processing

Review

Preservation

C ll ti

IdentificationInformation Management Production Presentation

Collection

Analysis

42

To collect, process, store, review, and produce

What does it actually cost?, p , , , p

data from 1 PC

43

“All In” Cost Per Document

Document Type Avg Pages/Doc Price Per Doc

Word 9 $ 18

Excel 50 $ 100

Powerpoint 14 $ 28

Text Files 20 $ 40

Image Files 1.4 $ 3

Outlook/Exchange Email 1.5 $ 3

46

The Role of Cost and

NEGOTIATING ESI PROTOCOLS

Proportionality

47

Fed.R.Civ.P. 1

Rules should be construed and administered toRules should be construed and administered to secure the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”y p g

48

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g)(g)

Rule 11 for discoveryRule 11 for discovery

* * * neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome i id i th d f thor expensive, considering the needs of the case,

prior discovery in the case, the amount in controversy and the importance of the issues atcontroversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the action.

49

Mancia v. Mayflowery

• Discovery budget in line with amount in controversy• Discovery budget in line with amount in controversy and issues at stake

50

Process Less

51

Processing Optionsg p

• Don’t process everything you collect• Don t process everything you collect

• Exclude system files

• Exclude irrelevant date ranges

• Targeted extraction• Targeted extraction

• Targeted file types

52

The NIST List

• National Software Reference Library• National Software Reference Library

• Over 17 million files in the database

• Hash values

• Used to identify known system files• Used to identify known system files

54

Custom NIST lists

• Remove standard files from corporate deployment• Remove standard files from corporate deployment images

55

PCUSB PC

ES

USB

Custodian GlobalWe have seen 43%

FSCustodian Deduplication

7 files become 1*

Global Deduplication

14 files become 1*

to 64% global deduplication rates

PC USBES

56

Review Less

57

Cull Before You Search

• Narrow date ranges• Narrow date ranges

• Email senders

• Email domains

58

Date Range Filtersg

• One of the most effective ways to reduce the volume• One of the most effective ways to reduce the volume

• Key date range or ranges

• Tie to events, sources, custodians

• Different date ranges for different custodians and• Different date ranges for different custodians and different sources

59

Irrelevant EmailsDomains and Senders

• Company distribution lists • Community involvementCompany distribution lists

• Standard corporate announcements

Community involvement

• Solicitations

• Trade associations• Travel messages

• Family members

• Trade associations

• DoNotReply

• Workflow or approval emails• Banks, brokers, insurance

companies

• Workflow or approval emails (PTO, product releases, press releases)

• Fantasy football or other sports

Internal vs external domains

• Spam

• eCommerce sites• Internal vs. external domains

60

EVALUATE REVIEW BURDEN BEFORE AGREEING TO A SEARCH PROTOCOL

Review Smarter

61

starvation starring starks startrange starpower startdate starburst starta starck starch starving starkey startled starnet startangle starttexfig starnetsystems stardust starla stara start_date startinga starlight starwars

startmonth startpage starke starpoints start2 starnatgas starley starkovich starsupply startle starco startex

starker starline starred startupjournal starship startegy starcoexp starlite staroffice starsupppetfee starboy

starleaf starmedia stardom stargate startterm staralismy starghill starteda starve starcomglobal starcomm

starcomms starlink starfish starine starkist start cost

286 Variations

*starcomms starlink starfish starine starkist start_cost startrow starvpplp starchow6 starcom stares

started_template startrust starent starling starpoint starrett startribune starz starband starhub starit starkly

87,807 Documents

7,111 for Star or Stars

Star*starrett startribune starz starband starhub starit starkly starnberg staro starr_peaces starsa start_memory startac startec startfor startlingly startpos starwooda starcat starcraft starkeville starpow starsailor startc startecha

7,111 for Star or Stars

pstartles starttint startxref starbranch starcher starchy stardust1118 starer stargazer starkest starkweather

starletts starmark starowicz starsnbars starsteel start1 start2new start3 start_up startdd startloc startmenu startng startpath1 startpath10 startpath2 startpath3 startpath4 startpath5 startpath6 startpath7 startpath8

h9 h i l i 06 9

62

Sample The Resultsp

• Calculate hits for each search term• Calculate hits for each search term

• Review a random sample of documents for terms with high hit rate

• Drop, add, or modify terms based upon joint review of sample set

– X

– X not YX not Y

– X w/5 Z

X d t (X /5 W)– X and not (X w/5 W)63

Review samples of excluded documentsdocuments

AGenerate random sample of

Bsample of documents (B – C) (yellow area) to d t i h thdetermine whether relevant documents will be excluded by

C

narrowing search to set C (red area).

64

Evaluate Search Results

• By date• By date

• By location

• By source

• By custodian• By custodian

Look for patterns that may be clues to relevancy

65

“Raptor” by MonthRaptor by Month

67

“Raptor”A P f All IAs Percentage of All Items

68

“Confidential” by Monthy

69

ConfidentialP f All Ias Percentage of All Items

70

EMAIL THREADING, CONCEPTUAL SEARCH, CLUSTERING, AND

“New” Search

CATEGORIZATION

71

New Features

• Email chaining• Email chaining

• Near duplicates

• Concept searching

• Clustering• Clustering

• Categorization

72

Mi h l M G iMichael McGuireShareholder and eDiscovery Counsel

Littler Mendelson P CLittler Mendelson, P.C.612‐313‐7612

[email protected]

76