Man vs. Machine: Will E-Technology Render Associates Obsolete?

 

     In a highly-anticipated showdown, the IBM-created computer “Watson” prevailed against two human champions on the television game show "Jeopardy!".  In a world where machines have already replaced humans in manufacturing and human labor tasks, this sneak peak into a future where humans might also be replaced by machines in intellectual pursuits, was somewhat daunting.

 

     However, in the world of legal technology, that future might already be here. New technology in searchable electronic formats has already eliminated innumerable hours spent by associates and paralegals pouring over hundreds of thousands of documents.  Is this only the beginning . . . and is it desirable?  In the battle of Man v. Machine, will e-discovery software "free lawyers to be lawyers" or will they simply "reduce the number of jobs for associates"?

In a column by the staff of The Legal Intelligencer published on the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.com site, it was reported that “the growing use of software programs that can sift through mountains of electronically stored information turned over as a part of pretrial litigation…could put out of work a veritable army of young associates.” The column referred to an article published in the New York Times that said, in part:

 

After all, software doesn't bill at rates in excess of $100 per hour, and, moreover, as one lawyer told the Times, computers don't get bored or get headaches -- two very common occurrences when poring over thousands of e-mails, most of which will prove irrelevant to the crux of the case.

 

The column went on to note that “Paul Krugman, the newspaper's economic columnist, cited the story in arguing that even high-status professions like the law can be vulnerable to redundancy as a result of technology.”

 

     The new technology of producing documents in searchable electronic formats has already eliminated innumerable attorney hours.  Where once every document produced had to be read and considered for its possible value to the case, now the use of keyword searches and other new technology allows the machine, not the human, to identify documents that need further review. But currently, every document identified by the program still has to be vetted by a human for its possible relevance to the case. For law firms and their clients, the dollars saved by having software programs review electronic documents can be much better allocated to the actual preparation of the case; or, as the column noted, “If anything, e-discovery software is as likely to free lawyers to be lawyers as it is to reduce the number of jobs for associates. In any event, many of those jobs have already been outsourced or given largely to support staff.”

 

    So, for the moment, humans appear to still have functional value over their machine counterparts. And don’t forget, Watson may have won the Man vs. Machine tournament, but he incorrectly answered Final Jeopardy while both the humans got it right, proving we’re not obsolete…quite yet.

The ABCs of Electronic Storage: Archives v. Backup Tapes in the Courtroom

Now that school is in session, don’t get an education about electronic discovery the hard way by not knowing the difference between archived data and backup data, or you will find yourself banging your head on your desk . . . or being sent to the corner of the room by a court.  The key:  archiving and backup are NOT the same thing -- far from it.  Knowing the difference can cost you significant headaches, time, effort, and money, and can even impact the outcome of a case.

An easy way to compare the two methods of preservation is to consider the difference between retrieving an email that has been archived versus backed up.  Let's call it E-mail X.  If you “archive” E-mail X, you can still retrieve it easily to re-read it, move it to a folder, forward it, or otherwise use it just like the un-archived emails.  And it can be accessed from more than one computer station, meaning that someone cannot simply lose the one and only copy.  On the other hand, if you had created a “backup” of E-mail X, it would have been recorded, along with everything else that was work product that day, on a single backup tape.  There are two problems here.  First, the backup tape itself could be anywhere -- the back of a closet or a warehouse, for example.  And if that one tape got lost or was ruined in a fire, E-mail X is gone forever.  Second, even if the backup is locked in a well-secured safe, going back to actually find E-mail X would be akin to looking through a box of hundreds or even thousands of unsorted photographs for that one needle in an electronic haystack of information. 

Both ways maintain a record of the information, but which would you rather use if responding to a request?  Which would save cost, time and peace of mind? 

THE BASICS:  According to Matthew Lodge, writing in The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel,  “Active archiving…is a way of centrally managing the storage, retention and hold of information while ensuring ‘live’ (or active) access to any item. Active archives are indexed so that information can be rapidly retrieved for business, regulatory or e-discovery purposes.”    He goes on to say that “Once in the archive, an item can be controlled according to an information management policy.”  By contrast, it makes more sense to use backup tapes exclusively for the recovery of information in the event of a disaster, since using backup tapes for retrieval of information during discovery is extremely burdensome.  Such tapes are not "live" data that is currently on the system, neatly categorized and easily accessible.  Rather, picture them picking up dust in a virtual warehouse (and in some cases, actual warehouses), like the unorganized, over-stuffed filing cabinets of the pre-computer era.  The natural result:  a costly and time-consuming process.

 

THE COURTS:  The courts in Coleman v. Morgan Stanley, 2005 WL 679071 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Mar. 1, 2005), Toussie v. County of Suffolk, 2007 WL 4565160 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2007), and Adams & Associates v. Dell Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26964 (D. Utah Mar. 27, 2009), have exposed the inefficiency of using backup tapes as a principle method for retrieving information, instead of archiving.   In Toussie, for example, the County of Suffolk failed to archive data and was required to restore backup tapes in order to provide information responsive to a discovery request.  Despite a reduction of the search request to 35 search terms, the County of Suffolk incurred costs in the range of $600,000 to $900,000.  It could have averted an overwhelming amount of this cost had it archived information. 

 

THE LESSON Take a long, hard look at how your company is storing information -- notably, whether the reliance is more on archiving or backup tapes.  Unfortunately, if a company relies too heavily on backup tapes rather than archiving, a court may have no choice but to order the expensive and time-consuming retrieval and production of backup tapes, or major portions thereof.  A cry of "too burdensome!" and "too time-consuming!" may not work to excuse production.  If this sneaky strategy could work, everyone would keep their electronic information on backup tapes in order to skirt discovery in litigation. 

 

Thus, a company that relies heavily on backup tapes for preservation purposes may be wise to subject its retention policy to an overhaul going forward.  While this may seem like a pain in both the neck and the pocketbook, the savings will multiply astronomically once litigation comes down the pike and stored information needs to be gathered and produced.  So when considering how to best prepare for possible future litigation, remember your ABCs -Archiving beats Backup in the Courtroom - and you’ll stay at the head of the class.

Ode to E-Discovery in 2008

Flooding the internet, they consistently accrue:
Blawgs offering e-discovery 'Year in Review's;
But these go on about facts and case histories too,
Before getting to the point of what you can and can't do.

Why not cut to the chase? Why not give it up straight?
Stripped below are the basics of two thousand and eight.
We'll start off with the general dos and the don'ts;
The haven'ts, the shouldn'ts, the emphatically won'ts.

Quite instructive are Canon's and Keithley's examples
Of "lackadaisical attitude" of defendants. As samples:
Do not find that hard drive behind the client's home door,
When discovery has been ongoing for a year or for more.

Do not stumble on computer reports you said "did not exist"
In an e-folder marked "Reports" that you for some reason missed.
And periodically remind clients and their IT personnel
Of the need to preserve the source code that was written on that Dell.

When you don't produce e-mails, the court said in Peskoff
Explain your search method and why, at production, you scoffed.
But if you contributed to information deletion or loss
And the court orders recovery, you won't get your costs!

Do not say you've e-searched when it's just a tall tale:
This was sanctioned under Rule 26 in R&R Sails.
There were costs sanctions also in Ajaxo, among a larger plethora.
And sanction of termination in Arteria and also Pandora.

In Keithley sanctions were imposed even on a party pro se
And in Schwarzenegger for "foot dragging" and a "litany of delays."
But take heed, warned O'Keefe -- don't request termination on whim.
Do not "strike at a king" unless you're sure you'll "kill him."

O'Keefe (plus Equity, Victor) gave lawyers heart attacks.
For saying that search term effectiveness is for experts to crack;
And that if lawyers pick and evaluate the key words instead
They are moving toward places "where angels fear to tread."

The courts warned that when using a method of searching
Learn first of its weaknesses through prior researching.
This was why D'Onofrio rejected what both experts said
And created a brand new search protocol method instead.

Rule 502 on preventing waiver through "reasonable steps"
Saw decisions pronouncing judgment on various missteps.
Alcon acknowledged that the Rule's very recent debut
Was designed to avoid "expensive, painstaking review."

Despite this pronouncement, some courts have cried "waived"
As to attempts made in hindsight to have privilege saved.
Rhoads found possible waiver for documents mistakenly produced
If they were not in the privilege log – there could be no excuse.

And failure to take measures that could prevent waiver
Like claw-back agreements, or Sedona-type saviors
Led to Victor’s conclusion, which uncommonly held
That the attorney-based privilege at issue was quelled.

Moving on, Mancia addressed the Rule 26 obligation
To meet early on regarding e-preservation,
Proclaiming "adversarial conduct" in e-discovery condemned
As a "burden to the American judicial system."

Some courts dove in early to prevent such discord,
Ordering forensic exams to preserve evidentiary records.
To conserve ephemeral info in Xpel, it was fair;
And when defendants were evading service, it was ordered in Allcare.

Other examples included when a party was unable
or unwilling (in Canon) to preserve/produce on the table.
Just remember: as emphasized in Sterle and Square D
Do not interfere with a court-ordered forensic decree.

Rodman, Reinhard and Younessi addressed nonparty subpoenas
And the protection of confidential, trade secret arenas.
Where nonparties are concerned and offer up much resistance
In-house searches are fine, or neutral expert assistance.

The debates continue on metadata versus non-native tracks
And Aquilar labeled metadata as being "the new black."
That court ordered re-production of non-natives with meta
Though the recipient was required to pay costs, as pro rata.

But not all courts required conversion to a metadata mode.
Extra burden led D'Onofrio to an "only if necessary" ode.
And Autotech said doc requests must actually require "native" --
You can't ask for it in hindsight by getting creative.

Yet if e-documents already exist in original native form
And the requests do not contain any language that informs,
White condemned the conversion to non-native in litigation
Since this is done just to increase the opponent's frustration.

Finally, social networks are making an appearance in law
And becoming a most popular e-discovery draw.
The field is wide open on the extent to which these
Are discoverable and admissible, or cannot be seized.

Flagg required defendants to give ISPs consent
And to produce ISP-retrieved records of texts that it sent.
And in Australia a court made clients even more nervous
By allowing Facebook to be used as a method of service!

We hope you've enjoyed this short "Year in Review"
And that all of this knowledge is useful to you.
We await more developments in two thousand and nine;
And wonder whether and where courts will draw any lines.

 

**For a complete list of the cases discussed above, please contact the author.