Recently I came across a doubleclick.com digital marketing piece touting Google's latest search technology, Google Search Appliance 6.0. The inviting web ad promised: "Google brings Findability to Enterprise Search".
The list of oohs and aahs includes:
- Dynamic Scalability to thousands, millions, even billions of documents.
- Linking multiple search engines (federated searches) separated across departments or geographies to provide a unified set of results.
- Syndicated searches of up to 30 million documents.
- Fine-tuning relevancy by using latest technologies in search algorithm and search result ranking.
- Customizable security.
- User-centric search enhancements such as "User-Added Results" and "Query Suggestions."
While the new Google Search Appliance (GSA) represents another hopeful step towards the Holy Grail of Search, it is also a potential antidote to the current state of e-discovery -- at least from a strategic perspective. The cost of litigation appears to be at a breaking point where containment hinges on effective ESI searches and collaborative e-discovery maneuvers. Although Google's search technology may be primarily designed for Intra/Extranet implementations, GSA could also serve to reduce litigation costs by helping lawyers cull through exabytes of electronically stored information.
Finding an efficient means for culling through those exabytes cannot happen a moment too soon. Electronic discovery not only increases the costs of litigation, it also diminishes the legal profession.
According to a 2008 American Judicature Society (AJS) report, discovery abuse in civil cases presents a significant problem. Indeed, nearly half of survey respondents (45 percent) indicate they believe that discovery is abused in every civil case. Moreover, 71 percent agree that attorneys use discovery as a tool to force settlement. An astounding 81 percent of AJS report survey respondents stated that their firms turn away cases when it is not cost effective to handle them, and 83 percent said that litigation costs drive cases to settle that deserve to be tried on the merits.
The end result is that some deserving cases are not brought, and some meritless cases are settled out of court -- not because of the strength of the parties’ claims, but instead because the cost of pursuing or defending those claims fails a rational cost-benefit analysis. According to Ralph Losey, e-discovery has become a threat to the U.S. legal system. And that threat is pernicious and spreading.
In his e-Discovery Team blog, Losey -- himself a trial lawyer -- asserts that trial lawyers wrongly blame runaway e-discovery costs on poor rules, laws, and judges. According to Losey, the true cause of escalating e-discovery costs is the legal profession's failure to keep pace with the dizzying advances of new technologies.
In my opinion, there's plenty of blame to go around when it comes to e-discovery and the rising cost of litigation. Among other things, there is lack of knowledge on e-discovery issues and technologies; poor planning, selection and application of appropriate technologies to initiate effective searches; failure to collaborate and communicate effectively among counsel and IT staff; and, in particularly eggregious situations, wholesale adoption of the ostrich head-in-sand approach to e-discovery.
One need not become a techie in order to be an effective 21st Century litigator. But knowing when and where to seek help with respect to e-discovery issues could save you and your clients a lot of headaches and heartbreaks down the road.
5 days of searching ESI - $250,000.
4 days of filtering search results - $150,000.
10 rounds of sparring between parties - $300,000.
Google finding the right information - Priceless.