e-Discovery CLE - New York County Lawyers' Association

nycla.org

e-Discovery CLE - New York County Lawyers' Association

Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLEPresented by: Roger A. Smith, Christopher Sharp & Kevin J. MelfiOverview ofe-DiscoveryNYCLA September 27th 2012


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLEAbout The PresentersThe MCS e-Docs TeamRoger A. Smith is the Executive Vice President of the e-Document Servicesdivision of The MCS Group, Inc. As a seasoned litigation support specialistand ESI expert, Mr. Smith consults with law firms and corporate clients tostrategize and implement best practices in discovery to keep costs downwhile helping clients to efficiently analyze relevant information. Mr. Smith isa Certified Concordance and Catalyst Database Trainer with over 10 years ofexperience in Litigation Technology. This experience ranges from ProjectManagement of e-Discovery to litigation software development.Executive Vice President - Roger.Smith@themcsgroup.comChristopher G. Sharp is the Vice President of Business Development for thee-Document Services division of The MCS Group, Inc. His area of expertiseis in discovery and review workflow budgeting. Chris has providedbusiness-to-business consultative support in the Corporate and Legalindustry for 15 years. Prior to joining MCS in 2003, Chris has worked in asales or management capacity for OCE, Business Svcs Division, UniscribeProfessional Svcs and Kinko's Commercial Services Division.Vice President Business Development -Christopher.Sharp@themcsgroup.comKevin J. Melfi is the Marketing Specialist and Data Manager with The MCSGroup, Inc. While studying at Drexel University, Kevin’s litigation supportcareer began at Esquire Solutions where he was quickly promoted toLitigation Technology Specialist for the Philadelphia Office. There hebecame proficient in Realtime Court Reporting software, technical setupsfor Depositions and Arbitrations, Sanction trial presentation software. Aftergraduating Kevin was brought onto The MCS Group to start the MarketingDivision with the experience he’s acquired over the past two years.Marketing Specialist/Data ManagerKevin.Melfi@themcsgroup.com


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLEExplosion of Data= e-Discovery Spending$857M28%$1.1B2009 2014 (anticipated)PreservationWhen to StartPreservation andyour Obligations.Meet & ConferPreparing for theMeet and Conferand26(f) ConferenceCollectionSelf v. ForensicTechnology, ToolsandForensic ImagingEarly DataAssesmentVolumeThe Benefits ofECA/EDA and theAvailable ToolsProcessing& ReviewProcessingNative v. ImageReview StrategyLinear v. ConceptualProductionThe DifferentMethods andForms of DeliveryRelevance


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLEe-DiscoveryWorkflowPreservation: “Once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine documentretention/destruction policy and put in place a litigation hold to ensure the preservation of relevantdocuments.”(Zubulake)Collection: The process of acquiring Electronically Stored Information (ESI) from the variouscustodians and locations where ESI is stored.ECA/EDA: The filtering and reduction of original data sets before the review using keywords, terms,date ranges and various other filtering techniques.Processing: Converting, exporting and creating databases to achieve the best results during review.Review: Further cull ESI by running complex searches across both metadata and document bodieslooking for the needle in the haystack to support the case and remove privileged documents.Production: organizing and processing the data based on pre agreed standards to be reviewed byopposing counsel.


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLE59%ReductionCase StudyReal World Numbers1.741%million documents (140GB) Left to ReviewRuduced to 97,000 documents (57.4GB)Using an ECA Tool.99%Unresponsive1%ResponsiveData reduced to 1% of the original dataset during Review


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLEBollean SearchingBe More Accurate Using Search TermsAND: This is specified between two keywords and/orphrases, and specifies that both of the items be presentfor the expression to match.OR: This is specified between two keywords and/orphrases, and specifies that either of the two items be present for the expression tomatch.NOT: Negates the truth value of the expression specified after the “NOT” operator.NOT w/n Specifies that the terms and/or phrases to the right of the w/n specificationmust not be present within the specified number of words.ANDANY: This is specified between two keywords and/or phrases, and specifiesthat items following the “ANDANY” operator are optional. w/n Connects keywordsand/or phrases by using a nearness or proximity specification. Thespecification states that the two words and/or phrases are within n words of eachother, and the two words/phrases can be in either order.NOTE: the specified number of words implies that there are n-1 intervening otherwords between the two. “Noise words” are counted in the specification.pre/n: Connects keywords and/or phrases by using a nearness or proximityspecification. The specification states that the two words and/or phrases are withinwords of each other, and the order of the words is important.w/para: The two keywords and/or phrases are found within the same paragraph,and order is not important.pre/para: The two keywords and/or phrases are found within the same paragraph,and order is important.w/sent: The two keywords and/or phrases are found within the same sentence, andorder is not important.pre/sent: The two keywords and/or phrases are found within the same sentence,and order is important.start/n: The keyword/phrase is present at the start of the document or section,within n words of the start.end/n: The keyword/phrase is present at the end of the document or section,within n words of the end.http://www.edrm.net/resources/guides/edrm-search-guide/search-methodologies


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLEe-Discovery TermsSome Key Terms You Should KnowOCR: Optical Character Recognition.What is OCR?Optical character recognition, more commonlyknown as OCR, is the interpretation of scanned images ofhandwritten, typed or printed text into text that can be editedon a computer. There are various components that worktogether to perform optical character recognition. Theseelements include pattern identification, artificial intelligence and machine vision. Researchin this area continues, developing more effective read rates and greater precision. The twomain systems used to perform OCR are "matrix matching" and "feature extraction." Matrixmatching is the simpler and the more common, as well as the more limited, of the two.Matrix Matching Matrix matching (also known as pattern matching) associates what the scannerperceives as a character with a stored collection of bitmapped patterns or outlines ofcharacters. When an image corresponds to one of these selected bitmaps within a certaindegree of likeness, the program identifies that image as the equivalent plain text character.An evident shortcoming of this system is that it can only be used for the fonts and sizes in itsrepertoire.Feature Extraction Feature extraction is also known as intelligent character recognition (ICR), ortopological feature analysis. It is a kind of optical character recognition that does not rely onprecise matching to set templates. The program searches for common elements such asopen spaces, closed forms, lines - diagonals intersecting and so on.Metadata: Metadata describes other data. It provides information about a certain item'scontent. For example, an image may include metadata that describes how large the pictureis, the color depth, the image resolution, when the image was created, and other data. A textdocument's metadata may contain information about how long the document is, who theauthor is, when the document was written, and a short summary of the document.Web pages often include metadata in the form of meta tags. Description andkeywords meta tags are commonly used to describe the Web page's content. Most searchengines use this data when adding pages to their search index.FTP: File Transfer Protocol, a software protocol for exchanging information between computersover a network.


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLEProcessing: When it comes to processing data for review and production there are a few optionsto choose from. It is important to plan ahead and know the file types in your ESI when making thisdecision.Native: These are copied files in the same format in which they were collected. There are pros andcons to choosing this type of processing and it is important you know the review platform you’ll beusing and the file formats in your ESI before making this decision. Review platforms are not capableof opening every file type in the viewer which could limit your ability to view the data without thecorrect software. Other file types don’t image well and can make for a confusing or impossiblereview of those documents.Image: Processing documents as images converts the array of documents and file types in thecollection into one format. Documents are processed page by page and images (tiff, pdf, etc.) aretaken then organized for an organized review.While imaging can simplify the review bycreating continuity between file formats, notevery format images well. The most commonformats that are problematic are Excel files.Before Imaging After ImagingNative + Image: If the ESI contains multiple file formats a solution to overcome the problematicimaged documents is to process the data both natively and as images. This allows you to maintaincontinuity between formats, while still being able to correctly view the files that are difficult to viewas images.De-duplication: Exact duplicates are removed using a HASH value. A HASH value is amathematical fingerprint of a document.Quick-Peek: Parties agree that the requesting party can initially review the producing party’sdocuments without any waiver of privilege.Clawback: Parties agree that any privileged documents which are inadvertently producedduring discovery be returned, or clawed back, without waiving privilege.Forensic Image: There is a big difference in just copying over files and taking a forensic imageof a hard drive. This method will be complete bit-by-bit copy giving you access to not just the fileson the computer, but also to files that have been deleted. If the data has not been over written thenit’s possible to recover deleted files.Linear Review: Less organized review strategy that lays the documents out in no particularorder. The reviewer will bounce between topics taking more time and will not yield the best results.Conceptual Review: This is a more organized review strategy because the documents arecategorized creating a more consistent review. This approach saves time, resources and yields betterresults reviewing documents of the same topic.


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLESiani v. State Univ. of New York at Farmingdale,2010 WL 3170664 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2010)Nature of Case: Employment DiscriminationElectronic Data Involved: ESI, emailse-Discovery Issue: Where court found defendants merely negligent in their preservation effortsfor failing to suspend certain routine file destruction procedures and for deleting some relevant ESI,court could not infer relevance absent a finding of bad faith and found that plaintiff had producedno extrinsic evidence tending to demonstrate the missing evidence would have been favorableand thus declined to impose an adverse inference; District Court declined to modify or set aside theorder, 2011 WL 2580361 (E.D.N.Y. June 28, 2011)Case Summary: In this employment discrimination case, the court denied the pro se plaintiff’smotion for spoliation sanctions, despite finding defendants were at least negligent in theirpreservation efforts, where plaintiff failed to present extrinsic evidence “tending to show that thedestroyed emails would have been favorable to his case.” Plaintiff alleged that defendants failed topreserve electronic evidence and requested an adverse inference. Specifically, plaintiff alleged thatemails were deleted by both named defendants and non-party employees of the university inviolation of their duty to preserve.Defendants presented evidence that following receipt of notice of plaintiff’s claim, multiplelitigation hold notices were disseminated and individuals subject to the hold were repeatedlyreminded of their preservation obligations. The employee in charge of the university’s ITdepartment also backed up the email accounts of the named defendants (employees of theuniversity), but admitted he did not back up his own email account or accounts belonging to anyrelevant non-parties. Nor did he suspend the automatic deletion cycle. Despite the hold, certainnamed defendants and non-parties admitted that emails were deleted either unintentionally or inthe course of routine cleaning. Still, some of the deleted emails were available from alternativesources. “A party seeking an adverse inference instruction (or other sanctions) based on the spoliationof evidence must establish the following three elements: (1) that the party having control overthe evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) that the records weredestroyed with a ‘culpable state of mind’ and (3) that the destroyed evidence was‘relevant’ to the party's claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it wouldsupport that claim or defense.”The court first addressed the question of when the duty to preserve arose. Plaintiff argued that theduty arose in January 2008, three months earlier than the date of his first letter to the universityregarding his potential claims and seven months prior to the university’s receipt of notice ofplaintiff’s EEOC claim in July 2008.


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLESpecifically, plaintiff relied upon defendants’ claim of work product as to documents datedFebruary 2008. Anticipation of litigation, defendants had argued, was triggered when plaintiffraised concerns of ongoing age discrimination in a January meeting. In turn, plaintiff argued that“if [litigation] was reasonably foreseeable for work product purposes . . . it was reasonablyforeseeable for duty [sic] to preserve.” The court agreed. The court went on to discuss defendants’receipt of correspondence from plaintiff in March 2008 in which he informed defendants of “aprima facie case of age discrimination, disparate treatment and retaliation” and his intent toinvestigate “and pursue such claims”. Rejecting defendants’ assertion that a broad duty to preserveis not triggered “simply because one or two employees contemplate the possibility of litigation,” thecourt reasoned that because the letter was from plaintiff, who had previously sued the universityand settled, and in light of the letter’s content, litigation should have been anticipated.Accordingly, the duty to preserve arose no later than March 2008.Regarding culpability, the court found that two non-party employees and one named defendanthad breached their duty to preserve. The court declined to find they acted with bad faith orwillfulness, but found that “there was negligence, if not gross negligence, in the implementation ofthe preservation efforts.” Despite recognizing defendants’ delay in implementing the litigationhold “for months past the time when they could have reasonably anticipated litigation”, the courtrejected plaintiff’s assertion that such delay necessarily amounted to gross negligence:The fact that they delayed the hold for months past the time when they could reasonably haveanticipated the litigation does not per se amount to gross negligence. If a delay of any length wastantamount to gross negligence and thus illustrative of a culpable state of mind, there would notbe two separate elements for the plaintiff to prove. But there are two elements, and establishing abreach of the duty to preserve is separate from establishing a culpable state of mind.As to the question of relevance, the court indicated that relevance may be demonstrated in twoways. “First, it may be inferred if the spoliator is shown to have a sufficiently culpable state of mind.”Here, the court found insufficient culpability to justify such a finding without further evidence.Relevance may also be demonstrated where a party submits “extrinsic evidence tending todemonstrate that the missing evidence would have been favorable to it.” Here, the plaintiff reliedexclusively on his argument that the defendants acted in bad faith and presented no extrinsicevidence regarding the lost emails. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for an adverse inference wasdenied.


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLEApple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd.,No. C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2012)Electronic Data Involved: Emailse-Discovery Issue: In this case, the court sanctioned Defendant for the loss ofrelevant emails resulting from Defendant’s failure to halt the auto-deletefeature of its proprietary email system and failure to appropriately follow upwith employees subject to the litigation hold to ensure compliance. As asanction, the court ordered an adverse inference sanction allowing the jury to presume that the evidencelost was both relevant and favorable to the plaintiff.Case Summary: In this case, the court sanctioned Defendant for the loss of relevant emails resulting fromDefendant’s failure to halt the auto-delete feature of its proprietary email system and failure to appropriatelyfollow up with employees subject to the litigation hold to ensure compliance. As a sanction, the courtordered an adverse inference instruction allowing the jury to presume that the evidence lost was bothrelevant and favorable to the plaintiff.The primary focus of this opinion was Defendant’s failure to disable the biweekly auto-delete feature of itsproprietary email system despite a duty to preserve (notably, the same auto-delete feature had previouslyresulted in sanctions in a prior case). Compounding the problem was Defendant’s failure to follow up withits employees to ensure their compliance with the litigation hold. Rather, it was within each employee’sdiscretion whether to save relevant documents. As a result of these failures, relevant emails were lost.Of note in this case was the fact that Defendant issued at least two rounds of litigation holds many monthsapart—one upon receipt of notice of infringement and one after Plaintiff filed suit. Also of note, the firstlitigation hold was distributed to only 27 people, while the second round reached more than 2,700. Followingdistribution of the first hold, no follow up efforts were undertaken. Following the second, significanteffort was undertaken to educate employees on their preservation obligation and how to uphold it. However,the auto-delete functionality was never disabled and Defendant has not presented evidence that itscustodians were in compliance with their preservation obligation even “to this day.” Indeed, "[Defendant]has never attempted to verify" whether its employees were complying with "the instructions they were toldto follow."Plaintiff sought an adverse inference. Conducting a comprehensive analysis of the relevant standards, thecourt first determined the Defendant’s duty to preserve arose upon issuance of the first litigation hold whichitself acknowledged a “reasonable likelihood of future patent litigation” in its instruction to recipients. In soholding, the court reasoned that the “phrase ‘reasonably foreseeable’ as it relates to a party’s preservationduties sets an objective standard” and noted that Plaintiff provided Defendant with “more than just a vaguehint” that it had violated its intellectual property where Plaintiff delivered a “comprehensive summary of itsspecific patent infringement claims.” The court further reasoned that even if Defendant had hoped for anon-litigation resolution, the notice of infringement would have put a “reasonably prudent actor on noticethat litigation was at least foreseeable, if not ‘on the horizon.’”


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLETurning next to the requisite mental state, the court indicated that bad faith was not required and that “[a]llthat the court must find” is that Defendant acted with “‘conscious disregard’ of its obligations.” As to whetherDefendant showed such disregard, the court agreed with Plaintiff that it was Defendant’s continuation of itsbiweekly auto-delete policy without any methodology for verifying employees’ compliance that was“dispositive to the instant question” and that “later efforts to educate its employees, and its issuance oflitigation hold notices, do not negate this.” The court further reasoned that “[i]n light of its biweeklyautomatic destruction policy,” the Defendant had a duty to “verify whether its employees were actuallycomplying with the detailed instructions” allegedly communicated to them but concluded that Defendanthad done “nothing in this regard.” Accordingly, the court determined the evidence was “more than sufficientto show willfulness.”Finally, as to relevance, the court noted the stark difference in the email production between custodiansusing the proprietary system and those who used another system that did not automatically delete emails.While many “key fact witnesses” using the proprietary system produced very few or even zero emails, forexample, at least two “similarly situated” custodians using the other email system each produced thousands.Additionally, many emails sent from custodians using the proprietary system were produced by otheremployees. The court also reasoned that that because the majority of accused products were issued prior tothe second litigation hold, the most relevant emails were subject to the biweekly destruction that took placeprior to “the bulk of” Defendants’ preservation efforts (following issuance of the second hold). Finally, thecourt pointed out that “to this day” the auto-delete feature was not suspended “even as to key custodians”and that Defendant had presented no evidence that its employees had “at all complied with the instructionsthey were given.” Thus, the court concluded that Defendant had “consciously disregarded” its preservationobligation.Summing up its findings, the court concluded that Defendant’s preservation efforts failed because 1)Defendant failed to suspend the auto-delete functionality, 2) Defendant “failed to issue sufficientlydistributed litigation hold notices” and failed to follow up with affected employees for seven months, and 3)Defendant “at all times” failed to monitor employees’ preservation efforts to ensure compliance. “In effect,”the court opined, Defendant “kept the shredder on long after it should have known about this litigation, andsimply trusted its custodial employees to save relevant evidence from it.”Accordingly, after finding that Plaintiff had been prejudiced by Defendant’s spoliation, the court orderedthat the jury be instructed that Defendant had failed to preserve evidence and that they may presume thatsuch evidence was both relevant and favorable to the plaintiff.


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLEAdhi v. Twp. of W. Pikeland,2010 WL 1047894 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 16, 2010)Nature of Case: Patent InfringementElectronic Data Involved: EmailsE-Discovery Issue: Court ordered that plaintiff allow defendant’s e-discovery expert to inspectplaintiff’s computers, despite plaintiff’s claim that the email sought was deleted in the usual courseof business, where plaintiff failed to deny that “responsive email may have existed at one time” andwhere defendant argued (and the court agreed) that “the mere deletion of an email does not makeit lost forever”; court reasoned that this would “allow Defendant to conduct discovery oninformation to which it is entitled without burdening Plaintiff with the expense of hiring a discoveryexpert.”Case Summary: In this zoning dispute, defendant moved to enforce a prior order of the court and,essentially, compel more complete responses to discovery, including the production of electronically storedinformation (“ESI”), specifically emails. Plaintiff indicated that even if responsive emails had existed, they were deletedin the ordinary course of business. Accepting defendant’s assertions that “the mere deletion of an email does not makeit lost forever”, however, the court ordered plaintiff to allow defendant’s “e-Discovery expert” to inspect plaintiff’scomputers to determine if any responsive information was still contained on the hard drives or the servers. In soordering, the court reasoned that this would “allow Defendant to conduct discovery on information to which it isentitled without burdening Plaintiff with the expense of hiring a discovery expert.”As summarized in the preceding paragraph, Defendant sought more complete and supplemental responses to discovery,including responses to interrogatories and requests for production. Defendant also sought sanctions for plaintiff’salleged discovery shortcomings. Regarding the requested interrogatory responses, the court granted the motion inpart, and ordered some additional responses. The court also ordered that plaintiff pay for defendant’s costs in bringingthe motion.Defendant alleged that plaintiff’s document production was incomplete. Specifically, defendant opined that the threeemails produced could not be the only responsive emails in plaintiff’s possession. The court indicated, however, thatneither the court nor defendant knew whether more email, in fact, existed. Plaintiff indicated that if such email everexisted, it was deleted in the ordinary course of business. Defendant asserted, however, that “the mere deletion of anemail does not make it lost forever, and that additional responsive documents could be retrieved with an e-discoveryspecialist.” The court was convinced:Given that Plaintiff has not denied that additional responsive e-mails may have existed at one point, we think itappropriate to order Plaintiff, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b), to allow Defendant to have its owne-discovery expert inspect Plaintiff's computers to determine if any responsive information is still contained on thehard drives or servers of Plaintiff's computers. This will allow Defendant to conduct discovery on information to whichit is entitled without burdening Plaintiff with the expense of hiring a discovery expert.


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLEFEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURETITLE V. DISCLOSURES AND DISCOVERYRule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery(a) REQUIRED DISCLOSURES.(1) Initial Disclosure.(A) In General. Except as exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or as otherwise stipulated or ordered by thecourt, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties:(i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverableinformation—along with the subjects of that informa- tion—that the disclosing party may use to support itsclaims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;(ii) a copy—or a description by category and loca- tion—of all documents, electronically stored informa- tion,and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to supportits claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;(iii) a computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party—who must also makeavailable for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, unlessprivileged or protected from disclosure, on which each computation is based, including materials bearing onthe nature and extent of injuries suffered; and(iv) for inspection and copying as under Rule 34, any insurance agreement under which an insurance businessmay be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse forpayments made to satisfy the judgment.(B) Proceedings Exempt from Initial Disclosure. The following proceedings are exempt from initialdisclosure:(i) an action for review on an administrative record;(ii) a forfeiture action in rem arising from a federal statute;(iii) a petition for habeas corpus or any other pro- ceeding to challenge a criminal conviction or sentence;(iv) an action brought without an attorney by a per- son in the custody of the United States, a state, or astate subdivision;(v) an action to enforce or quash an administrative summons or subpoena;(vi) an action by the United States to recover benefit payments;(vii) an action by the United States to collect on a student loan guaranteed by the United States;(viii) a proceeding ancillary to a proceeding in another court; and(ix) an action to enforce an arbitration award.


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLE(C) Time for Initial Disclosures—In General. A party must make the initial disclosures at or within 14days after the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference unless a different time is set by stipulation or court order, or unless a partyobjects during the conference that initial disclosures are not appropriate in this action and states the objection in theproposed discovery plan. In ruling on the objection, the court must determine what disclosures, if any, are to be madeand must set the time for disclosure.(D) Time for Initial Disclosures—For Parties Served or Joined Later. A party that is first served orotherwise joined after the Rule 26(f) conference must make the initial disclosures within 30 days after being served orjoined, unless a different time is set by stipulation or court order.(E) Basis for Initial Disclosure; Unacceptable Excuses. A party must make its initial disclosures based onthe information then reasonably available to it. A party is not excused from making its disclosures because it has notfully investigated the case or because it challenges the sufficiency of another party’s disclosures or because anotherparty has not made its disclosures.(2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony.(A) In General. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), a party must disclose to theother parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703,or 705.(B) Witnesses Who Must Provide a Written Report. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by thecourt, this disclosure must be accompanied by a written report—prepared and signed by the witness—if the witness isone retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or one whose duties as the party’semployee regularly involve giving expert testimony. The report must contain:(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them;(ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them;(iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them;(iv) the witness’s qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years;(v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or bydeposition; and(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.(C) Witnesses Who Do Not Provide a Written Report. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by thecourt, if the witness is not required to provide a written report, this disclosure must state:(i) the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence702, 703, or 705; and(ii) a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify.(D) Time to Disclose Expert Testimony. A party must make these disclosures at the times and in thesequence that the court orders. Absent a stipulation or a court order, the disclosures must be made:


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLE(i) at least 90 days before the date set for trial or for the case to be ready for trial; or(ii) if the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified byanother party under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) or (C), within 30 days after the other party’s disclosure.(E) Supplementing the Disclosure. The parties must supplement these disclosures when requiredunder Rule 26(e).(3) Pretrial Disclosures.(A) In General. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) and (2), a party must provideto the other parties and promptly file the following information about the evidence that it maypresent at trial other than solely for impeachment:(i) the name and, if not previously provided, the address and telephone number of each witness—separatelyidentifying those the party expects to present and those it may call if the need arises;(ii) the designation of those witnesses whose testimony the party expects to present by deposition and, if nottaken stenographically, a transcript of the pertinent parts of the deposition; and(iii) an identification of each document or other exhibit, including summaries of other evidence—separatelyidentifying those items the party expects to offer and those it may offer if the need arises.(B) Time for Pretrial Disclosures; Objections. Unless the court orders otherwise, these disclosures mustbe made at least 30 days before trial. Within 14 days after they are made, unless the court sets adifferent time, a party may serve and promptly file a list of the following objections: any objections tothe use under Rule 32(a) of a deposition designated by another party under Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(ii); andany objection, together with the grounds for it, that may be made to the admissibility of materialsidentified under Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(iii). An objection not so made—except for one under Federal Ruleof Evidence 402 or 403—is waived unless excused by the court for good cause.(4) Form of Disclosures. Unless the court orders otherwise, all disclosures under Rule 26(a) must be in writing,signed, and served.(b) DISCOVERY SCOPE AND LIMITS.(1) Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order,the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that isrelevant to any party’s claim or defense—including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, andlocation of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of anydiscoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subjectmatter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appearsreasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitationsimposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C).(2) Limitations on Frequency and Extent.(A) When Permitted. By order, the court may alter the limits in these rules on the number ofdepotions and interrogatories or on the length of depositions under Rule 30. By order or local rule, thecourt may also limit the number of requests under Rule 36.


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLE(B) Specific Limitations on Electronically Stored Information. A party need not provide discovery ofelectronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessiblebecause of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the partyfrom whom discovery is sought must show that the information is not reasonably accessible becauseof undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery fromsuch sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.(C) When Required. On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discoveryother wise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that:(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from someother source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery inthe action; or(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering theneeds of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues atstake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.(3) Trial Preparation: Materials.(A) Documents and Tangible Things. Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangiblethings that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or itsrepresentative (including the other party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent).But, subject to Rule 26(b)(4), those materials may be discovered if:(i) they are otherwise discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1); and(ii) the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, withoutundue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.(B) Protection Against Disclosure. If the court orders discovery of those materials, it must protectagainst disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party’sattorney or other representative concerning the litigation.(C) Previous Statement. Any party or other person may, on request and without the required showing,obtain the person’s own previous statement about the action or its subject matter. If the request isrefused, the person may move for a court order, and Rule 37(a)(5) applies to the award of expenses. Aprevious statement is either:(i) a written statement that the person has signed or otherwise adopted or approved; or(ii) a contemporaneous stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording—or a transcription ofit—that recites substantially verbatim the person’s oral statement.


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLE(4) Trial Preparation: Experts.(A) Deposition of an Expert Who May Testify. A party may depose any person who has been identifiedas an expert whose opinions may be presented at trial. If Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires a report from theexpert, the deposition may be conducted only after the report is provided.(B) Trial-Preparation Protection for Draft Reports or Disclosures. Rules 26(b)(3)(A) and (B) protectdrafts of any report or disclosure required under Rule 26(a)(2), regardless of the form in which thedraft is recorded.(C) Trial-Preparation Protection for Communications Between a Party’s Attorney and ExpertWitnesses. Rules 26(b)(3)(A) and (B) protect communications between the party’s attorney and anywitness required to provide a report under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), regardless of the form of thecommunications, except to the extent that the communications:(i) relate to compensation for the expert’s study or testimony;(ii) identify facts or data that the party’s attorney provided and that the expert considered in forming theopinions to be expressed; or(iii) identify assumptions that the party’s attorney provided and that the expert relied on in forming theopinions to be expressed.(D) Expert Employed Only for Trial Preparation. Ordinarily, a party may not, by interrogatories ordeposition, discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or speciallyemployed by another party in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial and who is not expectedto be called as a witness at trial. But a party may do so only:(i) as provided in Rule 35(b); or(ii) on showing exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party to obtain facts oropinions on the same subject by other means.(E) Payment. Unless manifest injustice would result, the court must require that the party seekingdiscovery:(i) pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under Rule 26(b)(4)(A) or (D);and(ii) for discovery under (D), also pay the other party a fair portion of the fees and expenses it reasonablyincurred in obtaining the expert’s facts and opinions.(5) Claiming Privilege or Protecting Trial-Preparation Materials.(A) Information Withheld. When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by claimingthat the information is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material, the partymust:(i) expressly make the claim; and(ii) describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced ordisclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, willenable other parties to assess the claim.


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLE(B) Information Produced. If information produced in discovery is subject to a claim of privilege or ofprotection as trial-preparation material, the party making the claim may notify any party that receivedthe information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return,sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose theinformation until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information to the court underseal for a determination of the claim. The producing party must preserve the information until theclaim is resolved.(c) PROTECTIVE ORDERS.(1) In General. A party or any person from whom discoveryis sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending—or as an alternative onmatters relating to a deposition, in the court for the district where the deposition will be taken. The motionmust include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with otheraffected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause, issuean order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden orexpense, including one or more of the following:(A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery;(B) specifying terms, including time and place, for the disclosure or discovery;(C) prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by the party seeking discovery;(D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certainmatters;(E) designating the persons who may be present while the discovery is conducted;(F) requiring that a deposition be sealed and opened only on court order;(G) requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercialinformation not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way; and(H) requiring that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information in sealedenvelopes, to be opened as the court directs.(2) Ordering Discovery. If a motion for a protective order is wholly or partly denied, the court may, on justterms, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery.(3) Awarding Expenses. Rule 37(a)(5) applies to the award of expenses.(d) TIMING AND SEQUENCE OF DISCOVERY.(1) Timing. A party may not seek discovery from any sourcebefore the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initialdisclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipultion, or by court order.


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLE(2) Sequence. Unless, on motion, the court orders otherwise for the parties’ and witnesses’ convenience and inthe interests of justice:(A) methods of discovery may be used in any sequence; and(B) discovery by one party does not require any other party to delay its discovery.(e) SUPPLEMENTING DISCLOSURES AND RESPONSES.(1) In General. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a)—or who has responded to aninterrogatory, request for production, or request for admission—must supplement or correct its disclosure orresponse:(A) in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response isincomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective informa- tion has not otherwise been madeknown to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing; or(B) as ordered by the court.(2) Expert Witness. For an expert whose report must be disclosed under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), the party’s duty tosupplement extends both to information included in the report and to information given during the expert’sdeposition. Any additions or changes to this information must be disclosed by the time the party’s pretrialdisclosures under Rule 26(a)(3) are due.(f) CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES; PLANNING FOR DISCOVERY.(1) Conference Timing. Except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B) orwhen the court orders otherwise, the parties must confer as soon as practicable—and in any event at least 21days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b).(2) Conference Content; Parties’ Responsibilities. In conferring, the parties must consider the nature and basisof their claims and defenses and the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case; make or arrangefor the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1); discuss any issues about preserving discove able information;and develop a proposed discovery plan. The attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties that haveappeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging the conference, for attempting in good faith to agreeon the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court within 14 days after the conference a writtenreport outlining the plan. The court may order the parties or attorneys to attend the conference in person.(3) Discovery Plan. A discovery plan must state the parties’ views and proposals on:(A) what changes should be made in the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under Rule26(a), including a statement of when initial disclosures were made or will be made;(B) the subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery should be completed, andwhether discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused on particular issues;(C) any issues about disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, including the form orforms in which it should be produced;(D) any issues about claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation materials, including—ifthe parties agree on a procedure to assert these claims after production—whether to ask the court toinclude their agreement in an order;


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLE(E) what changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under these rules or bylocal rule, and what other limitations should be imposed; and(F) any other orders that the court should issue under Rule 26(c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c).(4) Expedited Schedule. If necessary to comply with its expedited schedule for Rule 16(b) conferences, a courtmay by local rule:(A) require the parties’ conference to occur less than 21 days before the scheduling conference is heldor a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b); and(B) require the written report outlining the discovery plan to be filed less than 14 days after theparties’ conference, or excuse the parties from submitting a written report and permit them toreport orally on their discovery plan at the Rule 16(b) conference.(g) SIGNING DISCLOSURES AND DISCOVERY REQUESTS, RESPONSES, AND OBJECTIONS.(1) Signature Required; Effect of Signature. Every disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1) or (a)(3) and every discoveryrequest, response, or objection must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s ownname—or by the party person- ally, if unrepresented—and must state the signer’s address, e- mail address,and telephone number. By signing, an attorney or party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge,information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry:(A) with respect to a disclosure, it is complete and correct as of the time it is made; and(B) with respect to a discovery request, response, or objection, it is:(i) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending,modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law;(ii) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlesslyincrease the cost of litigation; and(iii) neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive, considering the needs of the case, priordiscovery in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the action.


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLERule 502 Attorney-Client Privilegeand Work Product; Limitations on WaiverThe following provisions apply, in the circumstances set out, to disclosure of a communication or informationcovered by the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection.Disclosure Made in a Federal Proceeding or to a Federal Office or Agency;Scope of a Waiver- When the disclosure is made in a Federal proceeding or to aFederal office or agency and waives the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection, the waiver extends toan undisclosed communication or information in a Federal or State proceeding only if:1) the waiver is intentional;2) the disclosed and undisclosed communications or information concern the same subject matter; and3) they ought in fairness to be considered together.Inadvertent Disclosure- When made in a Federal proceeding or to a Federal office or agency, the disclosure doesnot operate as a waiver in a Federal or State proceeding if:1) the disclosure is inadvertent;2) the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and3) the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error, including (if applicable) following Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B).Disclosure Made in a State Proceeding- When the disclosure is made in a State proceeding and is not thesubject of a State-court order concerning waiver, the disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a Federal proceedingif the disclosure:1) would not be a waiver under this rule if it had been made in a Federal proceeding; or2) is not a waiver under the law of the State where the disclosure occurred.Controlling Effect of a Court Order- A Federal court may order that the privilege or protection is not waived bydisclosure connected with the litigation pending before the court--in which event the disclosure is also not a waiverin any other Federal or State proceeding.Controlling Effect of a Party Agreement- An agreement on the effect of disclosure in a Federal proceeding isbinding only on the parties to the agreement, unless it is incorporated into a court order.Controlling Effect of This Rule- Notwithstanding Rules 101 and 1101, this rule applies to State proceedings andto Federal court-annexed and Federal court-mandated arbitration proceedings, in the circumstances set out in therule. And notwithstanding Rule 501, this rule applies even if State law provides the rule of decision.Definitions- In this rule:"attorney-client privilege" means the protection that applicable law provides for confidential attorney-clientcommunications; and"work-product protection" means the protection that applicable law provides for tangible material (or its intangibleequivalent) prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial."


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLEUniform Rules for N.Y.S. Trial CourtsPART 202. Uniform Civil Rules For The Supreme Court And The County Court(a) A party may request a preliminary conference at any time afterservice of process. The request shall state the title of the action; indexnumber; names, addresses and telephone numbers of all attorneysappearing in the action; and the nature of the action. If the action hasnot been assigned to a judge, the party shall file a request for judicial intervention together withthe request for a preliminary conference. The request shall be served on all other parties and filedwith the clerk for transmittal to the assigned judge. The court shall order a preliminary conferencein any action upon compliance with the requirements of this subdivision.(b) The court shall notify all parties of the scheduled conference date, which shall be not more than45 days from the date the request for judicial intervention is filed unless the court orders otherwise,and a form of a stipulation and order, prescribed by the Chief Administrator of the Courts, shall bemade available which the parties may sign, agreeing to a timetable which shall provide forcompletion of disclosure within 12 months of the filing of the request for judicial intervention for astandard case, or within 15 months of such filing for a complex case. If all parties sign the form andreturn it to the court before the scheduled preliminary conference, such form shall be "so ordered"by the court, and, unless the court orders otherwise, the scheduled preliminary conference shall becancelled. If such stipulation is not returned signed by all parties, the parties shall appear at theconference. Except where a party appears in the action pro se, an attorney thoroughly familiar withthe action and authorized to act on behalf of the party shall appear at such conference. Where acase is reasonably likely to include electronic discovery, counsel for all parties who appear at thepreliminary conference must be sufficiently versed in matters relating to their clients' technologicalsystems to discuss competently all issues relating to electronic discovery: counsel may bring aclient representative or outside expert to assist in such e-discovery discussions.(c) The matters to be considered at the preliminary conference shall include:(1) simplification and limitation of factual and legal issues, where appropriate;(2) establishment of a timetable for the completion of all disclosure proceedings, provided that allsuch procedures must be completed within the time frames set forth in subdivision(b) of this section, unless otherwise shortened or extended by the court depending upon thecircumstances of the case;


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLE(3) Where the court deems appropriate, establishment of the method and scope of any electronicdiscovery, including but not limited to(a) retention of electronic data and implementation of a data preservation plan,(b) scope of electronic data review,(c) identification of relevant data,(d) identification and redaction of privileged electronic data,(e) the scope, extent and form of production,(f) anticipated cost of data recovery and proposed initial allocation of such cost,(g) disclosure of the programs and manner in which the data is maintained,(h) identification of computer system(s) utilized, and(i) identification of the individual(s) responsible for data preservation;(4) addition of other necessary parties;(5) settlement of the action;(6) removal to a lower court pursuant to CPLR 325, where appropriate; and(7) any other matters that the court may deem relevant.(d) At the conclusion of the conference, the court shall make a written order including its directionsto the parties as well as stipulations of counsel. Alternatively, in the court's discretion, all directionsof the court and stipulations of counsel may be recorded by a reporter. Where the latter procedureis followed, the parties shall procure and share equally the cost of a transcript thereof unless thecourt in its discretion otherwise provides. The transcript, corrected if necessary on motion or bystipulation of the parties approved by the court, shall have the force and effect of an order of thecourt. The transcript shall be filed by the plaintiff with the clerk of the court.


Support Focused - Technology Drivene-Discovery CLE(e) The granting or continuation of a special preference shall be conditional upon full complianceby the party who has requested any such preference with the foregoing order or transcript. When anote of issue and certificate of readiness are filed pursuant to section 202.21 of this Part, in an actionto which this section is applicable, the filing party, in addition to complying with all otherapplicable rules of the court, shall file with the note of issue and certificate of readiness anaffirmation or affidavit, with proof of service on all parties who have appeared, showing specificcompliance with the preliminary conference order or transcript.(f) In the discretion of the court, failure by a party to comply with the order or transcript resultingfrom the preliminary conference, or with the so- ordered stipulation provided for in subdivision (b)of this section, or the making of unnecessary or frivolous motions by a party, shall result in theimposition upon such party of costs or such other sanctions as are authorized by law.(g) A party may move to advance the date of a preliminary conference upon a showing of specialcircumstances.(h) Motions in actions to which this section is applicable made after the preliminary conference hasbeen scheduled, may be denied unless there is shown good cause why such relief is warrantedbefore the preliminary conference is held.(i) No action or proceeding to which this section is applicable shall be deemed ready for trial unlessthere is compliance with the provisions of this section and any order issued pursuant thereto.(j) The court, in its discretion, at any time may order such conferences as the court may deemhelpful or necessary in any matter before the court.(k) The provisions of this section shall apply to preliminary conferences required in matrimonialactions and actions based upon a separation agreement, in medical malpractice actions, and in realproperty tax assessment review proceedings within the City of New York, only to the extent thatthese provisions are not inconsistent with the provisions of sections 202.16, 202.56 and 202.60 ofthis Part, respectively.(l) The provisions of this section shall apply where a request is filed for a preliminary conference inan action involving a terminally ill party governed by CPLR 3407 only to the extent that theprovisions of this section are not inconsistent with the provisions of CPLR 3407. In an actiongoverned by CPLR 3407 the request for a preliminary conference may be filed at any time aftercommencement of the action, and shall be accompanied by the physician's affidavit required bythat provision.Historical NoteSec. filed Jan. 9, 1986; amds. filed: Feb. 16, 1988; Nov. 19, 1992; Dec. 14, 1992; Feb. 12, 1996; Aug. 4, 1998; Jan. 6, 1999 eff. Dec. 21, 1998. Amended (a).Amended (c) on Mar. 20, 2009Amended (l) on Apr. 13, 2009Amended ( ) on Jul. 27, 2010 (previous version)


NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONSection ChairDavid H. TennantImmediate Past Section ChairJonathan D. LupkinCo-Chair of theE-Discovery CommitteeConstance M. BolandCo-Chair of theE-Discovery CommitteeAdam I. CohenNYSBABest Practices In E-DiscoveryIn New York State andFederal CourtsReport of the E-Discovery Committee of theCommercial and Federal Litigation Sectionof the New York State Bar AssociationJuly 2011Approved by the NYSBA ExecutiveCommittee, September 27, 2011


TABLE OF CONTENTSPageMembers of the E-Discovery Committee ..................................................................................... (i)Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1Guideline No. 1............................................................................................................................... 3Guideline No. 2............................................................................................................................... 5Guideline No. 3............................................................................................................................... 6Guideline No. 4............................................................................................................................... 9Guideline No. 5............................................................................................................................. 10Guideline No. 6............................................................................................................................. 12Guideline No. 7............................................................................................................................. 14Guideline No. 8............................................................................................................................. 16Guideline No. 9............................................................................................................................. 18Guideline No. 10........................................................................................................................... 20Guideline No. 11........................................................................................................................... 23Guideline No. 12........................................................................................................................... 25Guideline No. 13........................................................................................................................... 27Guideline No. 14........................................................................................................................... 29Glossary ........................................................................................................................................ 30Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 4313539355.4- iii -


INTRODUCTIONThese Guidelines for Best Practices in E-Discovery in New York State and FederalCourts (the “Guidelines”) are intended to provide New York practitioners with practical, conciseadvice in managing electronic discovery (“e-discovery”) issues in both state and federal courts inNew York, and to be a reference for best practices in e-discovery based on the current state ofthe law. These Guidelines are not intended to be a comprehensive review of e-discovery mattersor the law of e-discovery. Nor do these Guidelines propose how the law on e-discovery shouldbe changed, or suggest how applicable rules or statutes should be amended. Many excellentresources on e-discovery are available and they are listed in the attached bibliography.Moreover, e-discovery analyses are inherently fact-driven and the Guidelines may not apply, inwhole or in part, to any particular case or situation.Computers are not new to the legal process, and astonishment at the constant andcontinuous proliferation of electronically stored information (referred to by the acronym “ESI”),networks, systems and devices has become a cliché. However, new developments in modalitiesof ESI are potentially significant to attorneys because any information relevant to a legalproceeding brings with it concomitant legal obligations. Whether ESI is stored on Facebook, inan iPad, or in the “cloud,” counsel must understand the implications for attendant legal duties—such as preservation, collection, and production. Lawyers need not become computer experts;but they do need sufficient knowledge to represent clients competently in a world where “ediscovery”is fast becoming standard “discovery.”Do not make assumptions! Never has this precept been more apt than in e-discovery.There is no exemption from legal duties based on the electronic source of the relevantinformation. A recorded conversation may not escape preservation obligations simply because itoccurred by instant messaging. Lawyers should also never assume, inter alia, that:the client’s Information Technology personnel or the individuals responsible for theclient’s computer system understand what lawyers say about e-discovery;clients understand all of their legal obligations with respect to ESI and will takeappropriate steps to carry them out;the court will appreciate the difficulties presented by the client’s IT architecture;the adversary will pay for expensive e-discovery-related costs;the vendor will communicate promptly or accurately about any problems or delays inhandling the client’s electronic information; orthe adversary will produce ESI in the form your client needs or wants, or in the form inwhich your client will produce its ESI.These Guidelines in large part describe electronic discovery practices more relevant tocorporate business enterprises with significant volumes of ESI than to small businesses andindividuals with more limited resources. Larger business enterprises tend to havecorrespondingly larger volumes of ESI and more complex variations of electronic systems.However, even companies with access to substantial legal budgets routinely make decisionsbased on reasonableness and proportionality about how to conduct e-discovery in any particular


case. Smaller businesses and individuals with more limited resources may face a differentcost/benefit calculus. But the most cost effective methods of conducting e-discovery may befollowing the steps outlined in these Guidelines, within a certain scope and budgetary limitsclearly defined at the beginning of the case and agreed to by counsel and/or sanctioned by thecourt.These Guidelines should help the practitioner recognize certain e-discovery issues that mayrequire further examination and consideration, as well as provide a high-level framework foranalysis. The topics addressed represent areas of high risk for client and counsel. The e-discovery case law demonstrates that much, if not most, of this risk arises from a lack ofawareness and/or failure to communicate. These Guidelines aim to improve awareness andfoster communication, with the goal of containing risk.13539355.4- 2 -


GUIDELINE NO. 1: The law defining when a pre-litigation duty to preserve ESIarises is not clear. The duty to preserve arises, not only when a client receivesnotice of litigation or a claim or cause of action, but it may also arise when a clientreasonably anticipates litigation or knew or should have known that informationmay be relevant to a future litigation.Comments: There is no specific provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, the NewYork Civil Practice Law and Rules, or any other applicable procedural rules defining when anypre-litigation duty to preserve is triggered. The duty to preserve evidence may arise from otherstatutes or regulations or the common law, as defined in case law. Federal case law illustrates awide variety of triggers, from the common (e.g., a credible litigation threat letter from a lawyer)to the more controversial (e.g., lawsuits alleging product defects filed against other businesses inthe same industry). New York State courts have addressed the duty to preserve primarily in thecontext of sanctions for spoliation. There are no bright line rules defining with specificity thepoint at which the preservation obligation is “triggered.” It would be challenging to describecomprehensively the possible scenarios that might act as a “trigger” of the duty to preserve ESI.Moreover, efforts to define with specificity what events “trigger” the duty to preserve may notaccount for particular facts and circumstances specific to individual cases.It is settled, under New York law, that a client must preserve evidence when that clienthas notice of pending litigation, or when a client has notice that the evidence probably will beneeded for future litigation, or when a client must retain evidence pursuant to regulatoryrequirements. But it is far from clear what a client’s obligations are before clear notice of apending claim appears. Some New York courts have looked to the standards applied by the NewYork federal courts for guidance as to when the duty to preserve attaches.Despite the seeming lack of clarity in the case law as to what events trigger the duty topreserve, general conclusions may be drawn. The legal duty to preserve relevant informationarises when a legal proceeding is reasonably anticipated. Circumstances other than suing orbeing sued may also give rise to preservation duties, such as a regulatory investigation, a nonpartysubpoena, or a regulation requiring retention of information. Participation in a legalprocess where production of ESI may be required could also trigger the preservation obligation.Accordingly, the actual filing of a lawsuit or receipt of a subpoena may be the latest possiblepoint triggering the preservation obligation. When a client receives notice of litigation or a claimregarding which the client holds relevant information, the preservation duty may be triggered,regardless of what documents have or have not been filed with a court, or formally served.Given that reasonable minds may differ on when litigation is reasonably anticipated,especially with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the better practice often is to take a conservativeapproach. If there is real doubt as to whether the duty to preserve has been triggered, the saferapproach usually is to assume that the duty might exist. While this may be the safest approachfrom a risk avoidance perspective, it is not always the most practical in light of a balancing ofrisk and cost.In determining whether facts may have triggered the preservation obligation, the first stepis to assess whether a legal hold concerning ESI (i.e., the process implementing compliance withthe duty to preserve) should be initiated. This is a judgment call made by counsel based on all13539355.4- 3 -


available facts and circumstances. Client organizations need to advise their employees (and/oroutside advisors) designated to determine whether a preservation obligation has been triggered ofthe existence of the relevant facts and circumstances. Organizations may consider establishingprocedures to ensure that such reporting occurs. In contemplating the potential need to justify ata later date the decision to implement, or not implement, a legal hold, the supporting rationale forthe decision should be documented in writing in a manner that preserves applicable legalprivileges. These decisions may not be questioned, if at all, until years later, perhaps followingchanges in personnel such as in-house counsel, so avoiding a 20/20 hindsight judgment that isunrealistic given the contemporaneous context that led to the decisions is critical. It is importantthat a written explanation is drafted and retained that justifies the decision and discusses all thefacts and circumstances known at the time the decision was made and on which the client andcounsel relied in determining whether there was, or was not, a reasonable anticipation oflitigation.13539355.4- 4 -


GUIDELINE NO. 2: In determining what ESI should be preserved, clients shouldconsider: the facts upon which the triggering event is based and the subject matterof the triggering event; whether the ESI is relevant to that event; the expense andburden incurred in preserving the ESI; and whether the loss of the ESI would beprejudicial to an opposing party.Comments: Once a decision has been made that a duty to preserve has been triggered, the scopeof that duty must be evaluated. As indicated above with respect to triggering the preservationduty, the determination of scope of preservation is a legal judgment that must be based on all ofthe available facts and circumstances. For the same reasons as discussed above, decisions aboutscope should be documented along with supporting reasoning in a manner that preservesapplicable legal privileges.Decisions as to scope may address time frames, custodians, subject matter, andresponsive information by source or system, category, or type. Keyword searching and othertools may be available to identify ESI deemed to be within the scope of the preservation duty.Factual investigation including interviews of key witnesses may be indicated. As with thedetermination of the trigger point, it is often best to be conservative and preserve broadly. Youcan always argue about the appropriate boundaries of discovery later, but if you fail to preserveESI and the court decides you should produce it, you will have a serious problem.Identifying key witnesses and custodians early in the process is essential to effectivepreservation and discovery. Where it is difficult to identify particular individual custodians, itmay be necessary to conduct preservation based on an analysis of what departments, regionaloffices, or other organizational subdivisions might include custodians believed to possessrelevant information. In addition to specific individuals, entire departments or divisions may bedeemed responsible for subject matters, such as contracts or specific projects that are the subjectof a dispute or investigation. In identifying custodians, it is important to consider formeremployees, independent contractors, and any other individuals who may have had access torelevant information, and take reasonable steps to preserve relevant ESI on the desktops, laptopsand files of former employees and independent contractors, to the extent the ESI is available asof the trigger point.13539355.4- 5 -


GUIDELINE NO. 3: Legal hold notices will vary based on the facts andcircumstances but the case law suggests that, in general, they should be in writing,concise and clear, and should include: a description of the subject matter; the dateranges of the ESI to be preserved; a statement that all ESI, regardless of location orstorage medium, should be preserved unless other written instructions are given;instructions on how to preserve the ESI and/or whom to contact regarding how ESIis preserved; and the name of a person to contact, if questions arise. Counsel shouldmonitor compliance with the legal hold at regular intervals.Comments: A written “legal hold” notice should be issued to the applicable custodians ofinformation to instruct them regarding the duty to preserve and how it relates to informationunder their control. The goal here is to implement effectively a two-part process: (1) prohibitdestruction and (2) monitor preservation efforts. In addition, the Information Technology (“IT”)organization must be provided with a list of custodians who are subject to the legal hold toensure that any routine deletion of ESI from electronic information systems is suspended for theapplicable custodians. Where the client does not have an IT department, this responsibility fallson whomever has the practical ability to control the systems. Note that in certain cases,primarily where a large number of custodians are involved, it may be appropriate to issue legalhold notices to managers or supervisors of custodians for further “down the chain”implementation rather than sending a notice to each and every potential custodian.Legal hold notices often precede the issuance of a written demand for the production ofthe needed information. While the content of legal hold notices will vary from case to casebecause they are, by nature, fact specific, they should be consistent where there is no reason forrevision. The key to effective legal hold notices is simplicity and clarity because notices that aredifficult to understand or take too long for employees to read hinder compliance. Elements ofsuccessful legal hold notices include, by way of example: a brief description of the subject matterand date range of the target information; a clear statement that any location or medium of storageis included (unless other written instructions are provided); instructions for the custodian tofollow to ensure compliance; and a resource to contact with questions.From a technical point of view, implementing legal holds can be easy or difficult (andeverything in between) depending on the nature of the sources and systems that must beaddressed. Typical technology issues involved in legal hold implementation include, forexample:1) the importance of timing because of routine operations of information systemsthat delete information;2) the viability of sending out and following up on hold notices by email or whetherin-person contact is required;3) tracking the progress of steps to carry out the hold, including notices and systemsimplementation;4) the impact of removing backup tapes from the routine recycling, overwriting, ordestruction process;5) the automated implementation of holds across various systems, such as emails,databases, file servers, etc.;13539355.4- 6 -


6) whether collection (versus hold-in-place), is the best or most appropriate methodof hold implementation under the facts and circumstances presented;7) stopping “auto-delete” functions; and8) ensuring that all ESI sources are properly identified and addressed, includingonline, near-line, and offline servers and storage devices and home computers,when applicable.Actions to prevent loss or alteration of potential ESI could include preventing manual orautomated system operations such as:1) using any software, hardware, or other means that might cause the overwriting,erasing, alteration, concealment, discarding, or destruction of ESI;2) disabling any process that might prevent the normal logging of any form oftransaction related to any form of ESI;3) reassigning, altering, or disabling passwords, user authentication, documentcertificates, or any other form of custodian, user, and ESI identification and accesscapability; and/or4) altering or preventing access to any desktop or portable computing orcommunication device that might contain potential ESI.Depending on the circumstances, affirmative actions to preserve ESI might include:1) establishment of a secure repository for housing collected ESI;2) preservation of archival and backup media;3) preservation of the content for specified individuals that may be stored on emailand file servers, desktop and laptop computers, portable devices, removablemedia, and in online accounts;4) forensic imaging and/or removal from service and securely impounding selectedcomputing and storage devices and media related to designated individuals; and/or5) preservation of tangible items that may be required to access, interpret, or searchpotentially relevant ESI, including logs, network diagrams, flow charts,instructions, data entry forms, abbreviations, user IDs, passwords, authenticationkeys, user manuals, and other legacy or proprietary media or devices required toaccess potential ESI.It also may be advisable to issue a preservation notice to an adverse party or a potentiallyadverse party. This decision should be made considering whether the common law duty of theadverse party to preserve has already been triggered, in which case a preservation notice may notbe necessary. But where there are legitimate concerns about potential spoliation, sending apreservation notice may be advisable. Such notices should be carefully tailored to ensure thatwhat is being asked of the recipient is not overly broad and unduly burdensome. Clients shouldexpect that sending a preservation notice to its adversary may result in the adversary sending asimilar preservation notice to that client. A recipient of such a letter often has a number ofdifficult judgments to make, including: whether a preservation duty exists, the proper scope ofthat duty, and whether and how to respond to the letter. Reaching a reasonable agreement withan adversary is the best outcome when the dispute is important. Delimiting the preservation duty13539355.4- 7 -


as early as possible with the adverse party and acting in accordance with the agreementsubstantially reduces the risk of spoliation sanctions later in the case.Another mechanism available to ensure preservation by an adversary is the preservationorder, although this is not frequently imposed. Preservation orders can be a blessing in disguiseto a party with a duty to preserve, if the order defines the boundaries of the duty with sufficientspecificity. Such an order can reduce the uncertainty that may lead lawyers to advise expensiveand operationally disruptive preservation steps. The case law on preservation orders indicatesthat obtaining such an order requires something more than the existence of a preservation duty --which exists in every case -- such as a sound basis to believe that spoliation will occur without anorder.Finally, consideration should be given as to whether it is advisable to permit preservationto be controlled by specific custodians if the custodians are personally implicated by the eventsand/or the company faces significant exposure to liability. High ranking corporate executivesmay assume that IT will take care of preservation and ignore legal hold notices, and counselshould consider whether the ESI should be physically collected instead. This balancing of costand risk may suggest that: (i) in criminal cases collection is the right form of preservation; (ii)that where a small and readily identifiable group of custodians holds the key to a multi-milliondollar lawsuit, collection should also be used to preserve ESI; or (iii) where the critical dataresides on a particular computer, it should be forensically imaged as a means of preservation.Reasonableness, considering all of the facts and circumstances, should guide such decisions.13539355.4- 8 -


GUIDELINE NO. 4: Counsel should endeavor to make the discovery process morecooperative and collaborative.Comments: E-discovery can derail a case and may result in unanticipated, skyrocketing costs ifcounsel do not cooperate in a manner that may be different than has been the case historicallywith paper discovery. There is no benefit in trying to “hide the ball” at the preliminaryconference or “meet and confer.” Incomplete or inaccurate representations inevitably will berevealed later in the e-discovery process. There already have been cases in which counsel’soverly optimistic projections as to scheduling and production, based on incomplete knowledgeregarding the client’s ESI, have cost the client millions of dollars.A failure to be forthcoming about ESI issues could lead to further discovery, ramping upcosts and possibly revealing vulnerabilities. In federal court, Rule 30(b)(6) depositions arefrequently permitted, and depositions may be noticed in state court actions as well, so thatcounsel may explore an opposing party’s IT environment, retention policies, e-discoverycompliance procedures, etc. Such discovery may be avoided if relevant information regardingthe client’s ESI and computer systems is provided at the outset of the case. This is the type ofcooperation that is necessary if the discovery process is to proceed efficiently. If the case getsbogged down in “discovery about discovery,” clients will inevitably suffer additional cost anddelay. It may be necessary for counsel to explain to the client the significance of beingforthcoming on e-discovery issues in order to receive the client’s full cooperation throughout thee-discovery process.When errors in what has been represented to opposing counsel and/or the court arediscovered, the duty of candor requires prompt correction and disclosure. If that ethicalrequirement is insufficient motivation, then consider the cases where severe sanctions have beenlevied for delays in advising the court about e-discovery problems. Courts often view the failureto report knowledge that a prior representation was wrong as equivalent to a misrepresentation.There is a range of opinions regarding whether it is advisable to include the client’s ITpersonnel or the client representative with the most knowledge of the client’s computer system atthe “meet and confer” or preliminary conference. While having a knowledgeable IT personpresent to address questions that may arise, or to explain detailed technical issues may bebeneficial, under certain circumstances, lawyers may be uncomfortable with the unpredictabilityof having a non-lawyer potentially speak for the client on e-discovery issues. In any event,counsel should identify and prepare one or more of the IT personnel or other clientrepresentatives who can perform adequately as witnesses to testify as to the computer system andprocedures regarding ESI, should the need arise.The need for cooperation in e-discovery is the subject of the Sedona Conference’s“Cooperation Proclamation,” which has been supported by many members of the judiciary. E-discovery can be difficult and complicated, and uncooperative behavior between counsel canonly serve to make it more so. Because cooperation in e-discovery can facilitate an efficientprocess, thus reducing costs, most clients should prefer that their counsel adopt a cooperativeapproach.13539355.4- 9 -


GUIDELINE NO. 5: Counsel should be familiar with their client’s informationtechnology, sources of ESI, preservation, and scope and form of production, as soonas litigation is anticipated, but in no event later than any “meet and confer” orpreliminary conference.Comments: In most New York State courts and in all federal courts in New York, counselare required to confer early in the case, not later than at the preliminary conference, regarding e-discovery issues.The rules in federal court 1 and in the Commercial Divisions of the New York State SupremeCourt 2 require counsel to “meet and confer” about e-discovery prior to the preliminaryconference. In the Commercial Divisions of the New York State Supreme Court, the partiesmust consider in advance the following e-discovery issues:a) preservation of ESI;b) “identification” of relevant ESI;c) scope of e-discovery;d) form of production;e) anticipated costs and proposed allocation of same;f) disclosure of the “programs and manner” in which the ESI is stored;g) identification of systems holding relevant ESI; andh) identification of the individuals responsible for ESI preservation.In federal court, the discussions about e-discovery prior to the preliminary conference encompasssimilar scope and breadth, with the additional requirement of discussing the manner in whichinadvertent production of privileged information will be handled procedurally.In the New York State Supreme Court (outside the Commercial Divisions) and CountyCourt, there is no specific rule obligating counsel to confer before the preliminary conference.But if a preliminary conference is held, and when it is deemed “appropriate” by the court,counsel must discuss the above issues at the preliminary conference. 3 Further, if a case “isreasonably likely to include electronic discovery,” at the preliminary conference, counsel “mustbe sufficiently versed in matters relating to their clients’ technological systems to discusscompetently all issues relating to electronic discovery.” 4Counsel should check the Rules of each Commercial Division 5 in New York State Court, as12345Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f).22 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & R. §§ 202.70(g), Rules 8(a) and (b).See 22 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & R. § 202.12(c)(3).See 22 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & R. § 202.12(b).For example, the New York State Commercial Division for Nassau County has its own “Guidelines forDiscovery of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”)” and a Preliminary Conference Order form, whichaddresses e-discovery issues. See Commercial Division, Nassau County, “Guidelines for Discovery ofElectronically Stored Information”; Preliminary Conference Order. The Nassau County Guidelines containmany of the requirements relating to e-discovery provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.13539355.4- 10 -


applicable, as well as the rules of the individual federal judge and the Practice Rules of theparticular New York State Court justice to determine whether any additional rules concerning e-discovery apply in a particular case.After the preliminary conference is held in any of the above referenced courts, the court mayissue an order, which may address e-discovery issues. 6It is clear from the plain text of these rules that a significant amount of disclosure is required,at the outset of the case, with respect to the client’s information technology system as well as thee-discovery process undertaken by each party from start (preservation of information ) to finish(production of documents and information). This places a substantial burden on counsel, early inthe case, to prepare by assembling accurate information with the client’s participation -- aprocess that is often much more difficult than it might seem initially. The reality is that very fewclients have the up-to-date information counsel will need about each potential source of ESI incoherent written form that is easily accessed. In representing individuals and smaller companieswithout IT departments, the task may be even more challenging and may require more inputfrom the client. Sometimes counsel will also need access to one or more IT personnel who cananswer essential questions, but often the required information may be dispersed among manyindividuals in charge of various aspects of the client’s IT system.The fact that such disclosures will be necessary in any case pending in any of the New Yorkfederal courts and many cases pending in the New York State Courts indicates that it is prudentfor counsel to work with the client, where appropriate, to prepare the background IT information,if possible, before litigation begins. The goal of this effort would be to create a summary of thesources of ESI and the facts relevant to e-discovery, such as retention periods and format of ESI, 7which can then be used as a basis for lawyers and client representatives knowledgeable about theclient’s computer system to begin discussions about e-discovery strategy.Counsel must also estimate the scope of e-discovery at a time when it may be pureguesswork to do so. The ability to estimate the likely duration of the process as well as its cost isa function of many factors, including the facts of the case, the amount at issue, the adversary andits counsel, the scope of planned e-discovery, the client’s IT systems, and the client’s budget andresources. Nevertheless, e-discovery is not new, and there is a wealth of informative resourcesavailable to assist in projecting e-discovery timelines and cost. In any event, this preparation isessential to fulfilling the mandate of cooperation indicated by the applicable rules.67Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(B)(iii); 22 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & R. §§ 202.12(b); 202.70(g), Rules 8(a) and (b);11(c).This type of systems overview is preferable to what is typically referred to as a data map, which is usually a“pictorial” rendering of a network or some other portion of an IT architecture. These kinds of data maps canbe incomplete and in any event may be incomprehensible to lawyers.13539355.4- 11 -


GUIDELINE NO. 6: To the extent possible, requests for the production of ESI andsubpoenas seeking ESI should, with as much particularity as possible, identify thetype of ESI sought, the underlying subject matter of the ESI requested and therelevant time period of the ESI. Objections to requests for ESI should plainlyidentify the scope and limitations of any responsive production. Boilerplatelanguage which obscures the particular bases for objections and leaves therequesting party with no clear idea of what is or is not being produced should beavoided. If necessary, counsel should meet and confer to resolve any outstandingdisputes about the scope or format of production.Comments: Written document requests for ESI and subpoenas for ESI are frequently met withobjections that the requests are burdensome and overly broad. In addition, in e-discovery,technical, highly complex issues may render requests inherently ambiguous and compliance verydifficult. To avoid, or contain, potential problems arising as a result of these issues, documentrequests and subpoenas for the production of ESI, and objections to those document requests andsubpoenas, should be written in plain, clear language with as much specificity as possible underthe circumstances. Accurate communication is key.In articulating requests for ESI and objections to those requests, there is no place forboilerplate verbiage that is used solely for gamesmanship. Such language may give the partyreceiving the request the impression that the requesting party wants all ESI ever created. Whenthe responding party uses such language in objections, the requesting party may be left with noidea what the responding party is willing or able to produce, or not produce. If the objectionscontain this boilerplate verbiage, the requesting party may be unable to discern with anyspecificity the putative justification for the responding party’s objection.The information needed to tailor document requests to seek information relevant to theclaims, causes of action, and defenses at issue in the case should be part of what the partiesdiscuss when they “meet and confer” regarding ESI prior to or at the preliminary conference, asrequired in all federal courts, and the New York State Supreme and County courts. 8 However, inpractice, parties often fail to confer about ESI early in the case, as they should, and in any eventcases evolve as counsel gather more information regarding their respective claims, causes ofaction, and defenses. If you cannot appropriately describe the ESI that you seek when you drafta written request for the production of documents, it is almost always beneficial to pick up thephone and confer with your adversary in an attempt to ascertain what types of ESI the adversarymaintains, where the information is located, how it is stored, who the relevant individuals are andany other facts that would assist in specifying the ESI relevant to the claims, causes of action,and defenses in the action.There may be instances in which a broad request may be appropriate. In such situations,requesting counsel should confer with responding counsel to gather facts to state the request orobjection with as much particularity as possible. Conferences among counsel may not always besuccessful in this regard, so this Guideline is prefaced with the words “[t]o the extent possible.”8Counsel should check the local rules of each court and the rules of each jurist for any specific additionalrequirements in this area.13539355.4- 12 -


To the extent such lack of clarity may affect fundamental aspects of the production, such asissues relating to form or scope, which may affect costs, and no agreement is reached, counselshould consider seeking judicial intervention before producing ESI. Otherwise, there is a riskthat, after production, the court could order the client to search, collect and produce additional ordifferent ESI, which may increase costs and waste time.13539355.4- 13 -


GUIDELINE NO. 7: Counsel should agree on the form of production of ESI for allparties prior to producing ESI. In cases in which counsel cannot agree, counselshould clearly identify their respective client’s preferred form of production of ESIas early in the case as possible and should consider seeking judicial intervention toorder the form of production before producing ESI. In requests for production ofdocuments or subpoenas and objections to requests to produce or subpoenas, theform of production of responsive ESI should be clearly stated. If the parties havepreviously agreed to the form of production, the agreement and the form should bestated. In any event, counsel should not choose a form of production based on itslack of utility to opposing counsel.Comments: Form of production is one of the topics specifically identified as a required subjectmatter for parties to discuss prior to the preliminary conference in Rule 26(f) of the FRCP andRule 8 of the New York State Commercial Division Rules. It is also an issue to be considered ata preliminary conference, “where the court deems appropriate,” in civil actions in New YorkState Supreme Courts (outside the Commercial Division) and County Courts. If the form ofproduction is not completely resolved or agreed to prior to or at the preliminary conference, theFederal Rules give parties the opportunity to address the form of production in the requests forproduction of ESI, or the opportunity to object to such form of production in the objections tothose requests. 9 In federal court, if there is no agreement to form of production, then ESI mustbe produced in the form in which it is “ordinarily maintained” or in a form that is “reasonablyusable.” 10 New York State procedural rules do not provide counsel with similar guidance.Nevertheless, in any case involving ESI, including cases pending in New York State Court, theparties should attempt to agree to the form of production, or identify their preferred form ofproduction, before producing ESI or requesting that their adversary produce ESI.Failing to identify the form of production could have disastrous results. Counsel mayrequire, where appropriate, that ESI produced by their adversary should be searchable, either fulltext or with respect to certain categories such as date, author or recipient, to facilitate the use ofthe ESI. The ESI produced by the adversary should be compatible with the requesting party’scomputer system or platform. Imagine receiving the electronic equivalent of a million pages ofdocuments only to find that the production is not searchable electronically on your client’scomputer system or platform. Counsel using document review applications must make sure thatthe format they request or agree to is compatible with their system and that they request whateverassociated information (e.g., a “load file”) is necessary to facilitate electronic review. The clientshould understand the issues involved in choosing the form of production and the client, or itstechnical personnel, if any and if appropriate under the circumstances, should be involved in thedecision.The choice of production to be used in any given case is a fact-specific inquiry thatdepends on the form in which the ESI is stored, the parties’ respective computer systems, the910If a party responding to a request for the production of ESI does not like the form of production requested, ithas the opportunity to object and propose an alternative form. If it fails to do so, then it will effectively havewaived its right to choose the form of production.FRCP 34(b)(1)(C); 34(b)(2)(D) and (E).13539355.4- 14 -


platform to be used to search the ESI, and other relevant facts. There is no general requirementthat ESI must be produced in native format, although many parties insist on that form ofproduction. 11 Producing ESI in native files may not be necessary or appropriate considering thetype of ESI requested and/or the issues in the case. Where appropriate, consideration should begiven to requiring the production of ESI in native format only as to specific categories of ESI.Moreover, native files present problems relating to Bates Stamping and affixing other kinds ofnotation directly on files because affixing a Bates number or other designation on a native filewill alter the native file. These issues may sound like minor irritations, but as the parties start totake depositions and want to show exhibits to witnesses, identifying and verifying theauthenticity of the exhibits can become difficult when using ESI in native format.It is important to ensure that the form of production demanded or agreed to does notrequire your client to transform native ESI in a way that is unreasonably expensive. Certainspecialized or custom systems may present problems in producing ESI in certain forms. As withmost other e-discovery issues, careful consultation with the client’s IT personnel and, in somecases, outside experts is critical before reaching agreement on the form of production.In determining the form of production, parties should also consider whether they want torequest the production of metadata and, if so, what metadata to request. 12 Requests for metadata,like all requests for ESI, must be relevant. Requesting “all metadata” is almost certainlyoverbroad, as programs may generate many kinds of metadata that could not possibly be relevantto a lawsuit. Any request for metadata should be specific enough so that the requesting party candemonstrate why each field or type of metadata is relevant to the case. In determining whatmetadata should be requested from the adversary or produced to an adversary, counsel shouldconsider: (i) the ability to search by authors, recipients and text, as necessary to identify certainsubject matters and to be able to segregate potentially privileged ESI which was authored by,sent to, or refers to in-house or outside counsel or discusses legal advice; (ii) whether the courtrequires an index of ESI as it corresponds to the requests, and (iii) the list of major playersinvolved in the case, and other similar issues.In practice, it is common for parties to produce certain ESI in native file format alongwith image files (such as TIFF or .pdf) and searchable text, along with searchable metadatafields. For example, metadata relating to the date, the author, the recipient, and other aspects ofthe information may be produced by both parties.1112Please see the definitions of Native Files and Metadata in the Glossary.It is not necessary to receive native files in order to receive metadata. Metadata can be extracted and providedalong with the related file in other, more manageable formats.13539355.4- 15 -


GUIDELINE NO. 8: Producing ESI should be conducted in a series of steps, asfollows: (1) initial review; (2) search for and collection of ESI; (3) processing of ESIto eliminate duplicates and render it searchable; (4) culling the ESI to reducevolume; (5) review by counsel; and (6) production.Comments: To be achieved cost-effectively, electronic discovery must be conducted in anorderly manner. Described below is a process typical of many cases in which substantial e-discovery is undertaken:(1) The first phase usually involves a high-level, initial review of emails and other ESIassociated with key witnesses. In cases involving a large volume of ESI, this may beaccomplished by taking random samples or by targeting a particularly important but relativelynarrow time period. The potential cost of the process may be roughly estimated by consideringthe expected volume of ESI that will need to be searched and reviewed, as well as the sourcesfrom which that ESI will need to be collected. This phase may also involve initial conferenceswith opposing counsel, including the “meet and confer” required by the rules of certain courts, todiscuss the scope of preservation and discovery and the form of production. Clients that aresmaller businesses or individuals, or clients in small cases who may choose to have limitedbudgets for legal fees and e-discovery, should pay particular attention to agreeing with opposingcounsel to the scope and form of production to avoid incurring unnecessary expense regardingsearching, production and the form of production. They should also seek to agree with theiradversary as often as possible to avoid costly e-discovery disputes and costly e-discovery doovers.(2) The second phase includes the search for and collection of relevant ESI. If theparties identified an initial “scope of discovery” during the “meet and confer,” then that wouldform the basis for the execution of initial searches across all sources of potentially relevant ESI.Searches are designed to filter information according to a variety of parameters that are relevantto the matter, including, for example, key words or phrases, key persons, and dates. To theextent possible, counsel should seek to agree with opposing counsel as to the searches conducted,the types of ESI searched and the time period of the search. This process often occurs inmultiple stages as more is learned about what is in the documents and how best to identify whatis relevant. 13 Ideally, ESI collected from identified sources would be placed in a centralrepository or platform which provides security, protection, and access by authorized parties.(3) The third phase is data processing. The purpose of processing is to decompress files,extract metadata from files, eliminate duplication (“deduplication”), and prepare the collectedinformation for loading into a document review software tool so that the information may besearched and reviewed by counsel. This process may include creating image files such as TIFFor PDF and text files from scanned images using OCR software.13 Electronic searches may not be possible prior to collection and/or processing. The extent of electronicsearching that is possible at this stage depends on what tools are available and what sources of ESI need to besearched. Thorough electronic searching may have to wait until a broad scope of ESI is collected and/orprocessed, after which ESI can be loaded into a review tool that allows robust searching of the processed ESI.13539355.4- 16 -


(4) After processing, further trimming of the data, sometimes called “culling,” is usuallyrequired. This process involves more refined searches, filtering, and queries used to reduce thevolume of ESI and create a set of potentially responsive documents for detailed review. Thereality is that culling can take place at various points in the process as additional information isacquired that allows counsel to “zero in” on a more precise set of data relevant to the matter.(5) The fifth step, universally acknowledged as the most expensive part of the process, isreview by counsel. In preparation for the review, the information is organized so that it can bereviewed by counsel in an efficient, cost-effective manner. Counsel use a variety of documentreview software tools or “review platforms” to facilitate the review process. Documents forreview are uploaded to the respective document review platform. The review platform enablescounsel to perform various functions, such as native file analysis, redaction, annotation, andprivilege review, and enables counsel to group or tag documents by designated categories, suchas “Hot” documents, privileged, “further review”, or other categories tied to the specific facts ofthe case or the document requests.(6) Finally, the relevant, responsive, non-privileged ESI is prepared for production. Mostlitigation support systems leave the original files intact, but convert the files to TIFF or PDFwhile applying the appropriate redactions of privileged or confidential information, and addingannotation, Bates stamps, headers, and footers. The pages may be printed or stored on a harddrive in a folder structure. The collection of files typically is placed on a CD, DVD, or USBhard drive for production or presentation.13539355.4- 17 -


GUIDELINE NO. 9: Parties should carefully evaluate how to collect ESI becausecertain methods of collection may inadvertently alter, damage, or destroy ESI. Inconsidering various methods of collecting ESI, parties should balance the costs ofcollection with the risk of altering, damaging, or destroying ESI and the effect thatmay have on the lawsuit.Comments: In e-discovery, computer forensics relates to the science and art of examining andretrieving ESI from computers and other electronic devices and their associated storage devices,as well as the Internet, using methods validated by legal authorities and designed to facilitate theadmissibility of evidence. In many cases, conducting e-discovery requires special handlingwhere there is risk of ESI being inadvertently or purposefully altered or destroyed, or becausecertain ESI can only be extracted using special forensics techniques. In addition, in certain casesit is preferable to use an independent expert to avoid questions about whether self-interestedparties may have affected the results.Contents of storage media may be compromised because the media has degraded or hasbeen damaged, or because some or all of the content has been deleted accidentally orintentionally by reformatting, repartitioning, reimaging, or using specialized software to performthorough overwrites. Metadata may be altered by the simple act of moving a file to a newlocation, as is routinely done using common copying utilities.To the dismay of many users, most computers do not remove the contents of a file whenit is deleted, either when deleted manually by users or automatically by the system. In mostoperating systems, the contents of the file remain on the storage medium, while informationabout the file is removed from the file system directory. In some systems, even much of themetadata remains. ESI will remain on the storage medium until the operating system reuses(overwrites) the space for new data. Even when extreme attempts have been made to deletecontent, or the storage media has been severely damaged, forensics experts have been able torecover substantial evidence.An exact copy of a system and all its ESI might be considered an ideal situation for e-discovery practitioners, but is impossible in conditions under which most companies mustoperate. Consequently, most ESI resides in systems undergoing automatic operations that canpotentially disturb relevant information. In addition, normal user operations such as openingfiles, copying files, sending and receiving files, or turning a computer on or off can compromisethe metadata of an electronic document.Forensic experts and e-discovery practitioners are guided in any particular ESIacquisition situation by the circumstances and requirements of that particular situation, such asagreements reached among the parties, relevance and importance of ESI, cost and timeconstraints, potential business interruption issues, and claims of privilege. Aside from thesecircumstances and requirements, forensic experts and e-discovery practitioners need to be able torepresent that they have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that all captured content has beenpreserved unaltered.13539355.4- 18 -


It is critical to document each step in the acquisition of ESI, to respond to challengesor inquiries as well as to support admissibility.It is possible that some potential sources of ESI are disregarded simply becauseemployees believe that potentially relevant content has been deleted or that the storage mediumhas been damaged, is degraded, or is otherwise not accessible for other technical reasons.However, because of the possibility that employees or witnesses may not have considered all ofthe technical factors, and because of the demonstrated success of forensics experts, thoroughinquiry should be made with respect to all media (including information acquired via theInternet).Because of budget or other constraints, some clients may prefer to perform computerforensics using internal IT staff familiar with information or network security. There are someimportant issues to consider before doing so. IT staff may not have the kind of in-depthknowledge, experience, or tools appropriate to perform computer forensics in an e-discoverycontext. Handling ESI for purposes of legal proceedings is a specialized field with specializedtechnology. IT staff may also not have the time to conduct e-discovery given their othercommitments to ensure the IT operations of the business. In addition, they are not independent,and accordingly the original evidence is being handled by a party with an interest in its contentsand its relation to the outcome of the litigation.Organizations seeking to handle collections internally will need to devote significantresources to training and dedicating personnel to perform computer forensics. A significantinvestment will also be required in the software and hardware tools necessary to handle ESIproperly from an evidentiary standpoint. Nevertheless, in many civil litigations, less expensivemethods of collection may be perfectly acceptable. Lawyers and their clients need to assess theirappetite for risk based on the adversary, the nature of the threat, and the potential exposure to thebusiness in terms of reputation and monetary liability.13539355.4- 19 -


GUIDELINE NO. 10: Parties may identify relevant ESI by using technology toolsto conduct searches of their ESI. In most cases, parties may search reasonablyaccessible sources of ESI, which includes primarily active data, although if certainrelevant ESI is likely to be found only in less readily accessible sources or if otherspecial circumstances exist, less readily accessible sources may also need to besearched. The steps taken in conducting the search and the rationale for each stepshould be documented so that, if necessary, the party may demonstrate thereasonableness of its search techniques. Counsel should consider entering into anagreement with opposing counsel, if appropriate, regarding the scope of the searchand the search terms.Comments: Search is an iterative process in the effective execution of e-discovery, includingthe process of identifying and reviewing ESI for relevance, privilege and other reasons. It is thekey means of reducing the substantial volume of ESI to a smaller set of relevant, responsive andproducible information and documents.As a general matter, counsel should search for ESI in those sources most likely to containrelevant information and the scope of the search should be reasonable, considering thecircumstances of the case and the client’s computer systems and document retention policies.Sources may include, among many other things, desk tops, laptops, hard drives, servers, homecomputers, handheld devices, removable media, such as CDs, DVDs and flash drives, andsources of voice mail. Initially, the search for relevant ESI should be conducted from currentdata files. However, where other sources contain non-cumulative and relevant ESI, they mayalso need to be searched. For example, if the party has reason to believe that certain relevant ESImay only be located in a less readily accessible source, such as backup tapes, then that client mayneed to search the tapes. In the ordinary case, unless the opposing party shows good cause whyESI from sources that are particularly burdensome to access should be produced, and the courtorders the party to produce ESI from such sources, at least as an initial matter, the party need notsearch those sources.In most cases, if one party requests the other to search sources that are disproportionatelyburdensome to search under the circumstances, the searching party should consider requestingthat the costs of such a search be allocated or shared among the parties. In requesting thatopposing counsel search less accessible sources, counsel should be prepared to receive areciprocal type of request from opposing counsel to produce additional ESI from less accessiblesources, depending on the facts of the case. In determining whether a review of ESI from lessaccessible sources is justified under the circumstances, counsel should weigh the cost and otherburdens incurred in searching less accessible sources against the likelihood of finding relevantevidence.Because of the complexity of most IT infrastructures and the massive volume of potentialESI frequently encountered in complex cases, the most effective way to perform a search isthrough application of automated tools. Search software tools provide techniques that enablereduction of ESI based on selected criteria. However, lawyers must understand the limitations ofsearch tools if they are to be confident that they have identified all of the documents andinformation they are required to produce. There are always sources of ESI or types of files that13539355.4- 20 -


search tools may not be able to reach effectively, and there are often search parameters thatsearch tools cannot execute or may not execute depending on the form of the ESI. Counselshould stay informed as to the most current search tools available, as new developments intechnology may affect the cost of searches and therefore the cost of e-discovery.There are a number of considerations related to conducting searches, including the scopeof the search, the objectives of the person performing the search, the search criteria used, thecapabilities of the software, and the interpretations of the results of the search. The legal teamshould work with someone thoroughly knowledgeable about the search protocols and tools andtheir application to the sources under consideration in conducting the search. The variousaspects of the search should be documented, with an explanation as to why each step was taken(or not taken). It may be necessary later in the legal process to provide affidavits certifying theaccuracy and comprehensiveness of the search methods used and/or explaining the searchmethods.The most common approach to searching is through the use of keywords. This is asimple method in which a person enters selected words into a text field of the search program,the search program searches through a list of documents or ESI, and returns a list of the ESIcontaining the search terms that were entered. Keyword searching can be effective inminimizing the quantity of producible records, which can in turn reduce the cost of generating areview database. Keyword searching identifies documents and ESI in which a search termappears, but cannot determine the relevance of the document to the subject being researched. Inaddition, keyword searches must rely solely on the specificity of the terms used in the search,and cannot “learn” through use. Because of inherent limitations, keyword searching tends toreturn more documents than necessary in some situations and fewer in other situations.Consequently, it should be used in conjunction with other search techniques.There are a variety of search techniques that expand on simple keyword searches toprovide more robust and useful results. Some of these techniques are used during the collectionof ESI, while others are more appropriate during data processing or review and analysis. A listof common search techniques, including Boolean searches, “clustering” and “conceptsearching,” fuzzy searches and others, are defined in the Glossary.One common practice is for counsel for both parties to attempt to enter into an agreementregarding the scope of the search and the search terms. In many New York State Courts and infederal court, counsel for both sides are obligated to confer regarding e-discovery issues, and oneresult of this meet and confer may be a written agreement regarding each party’s search process,or a search protocol. In the protocol, counsel may agree to the list of each party’s custodianswhose desktops (and other sources of ESI), should be searched. If the client’s IT infrastructure isorganized in a different manner, the parties may agree, for example, which server(s) orplatform(s) each party would search. Counsel may further agree to the search terms to be usedby each party. Entering into such an agreement may reduce the probability that disputesregarding the search process would develop later.Decisions regarding the choice of the custodians or servers and the search terms shouldbe documented. This is to enable the party, at a later date, to be able to justify the decisions13539355.4- 21 -


made and to be able to explain why the choice of the custodians or servers and search terms wasreasonable. Before finally agreeing to search terms or a list of custodians, counsel shouldconduct a test search to determine whether relevant ESI is likely to be identified by using theproposed search protocol. The list of custodians and/or the search terms may need to be revisedand refined before an effective search is achieved. The terms of the effective search should formthe basis of the parties’ agreement.Although electronic search techniques and technology can be highly effective and in anyevent are necessary given the staggering volume of ESI, human error in implementing searchesis always possible. Search results, therefore, should be tested after the search has beenconducted to verify that the search was complete, accurate, and identified relevant documents.Specifically, the party should verify that some of the relevant documents it has already identifiedare included in the search results. Flawed searches can create issues potentially harmful to theproducing party, including providing a basis for sanctions. Tests of search results should also bedocumented for later use, if necessary.13539355.4- 22 -


GUIDELINE NO. 11: Counsel should conduct searches using technology tools toidentify ESI that is subject to the attorney-client privilege, the work productimmunity and/or material prepared in anticipation of litigation. Counsel shoulddocument its privilege searches and verify the accuracy and thoroughness of thesearches by checking for privileged ESI at the beginning of the search process andagain at the conclusion of the process. To avoid the situation in which aninadvertent production of privileged ESI may possibly be deemed a waiver of theprivilege, counsel should consider, as appropriate, entering into a non-waiveragreement and having the court incorporate that agreement into a court order.Comments: Once a set of potentially responsive ESI has been identified, counsel should useautomated tools and applications in the same manner discussed above to search that set of ESI toidentify and withhold, as applicable, any communications subject to the attorney-client privilege,the work product immunity, material prepared in anticipation of litigation and/or any otherprivileges or immunities that may be involved in the case. In formulating an effective search,counsel should confer with the client and review at least a sampling of the ESI to ascertain,among many other things: (i) the names of all lawyers involved in the underlying facts of thecase; (ii) the relevant dates on which the client began to consult with its counsel; (iii) topics ofprivileged communications; and (iv) any other unique facts relating to the privilegedcommunications. As the ESI is reviewed, additional facts relating to the privilege may bediscovered and may require that additional searches be conducted. After all necessary searchesare conducted, counsel should check and verify the effectiveness, completeness and accuracy ofthe searches. Counsel may have to demonstrate to the court at a later date that counsel tookreasonable steps to identify privileged communications.Whether the case is pending in federal court or New York State Court, counsel shouldconsider, as appropriate, entering into a non-waiver agreement with opposing counsel and/orhaving the court incorporate that agreement into an order, as provided in Federal Rule ofEvidence 502. The ever expanding volume of ESI that lawyers must review for privilege mayincrease the probability that an inadvertent production of privileged information may occur. Forthis and other reasons, Rule 502 was added to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 502(b)provides that any disclosure of a privileged communication in a case pending in federal courtwill not “operate as a waiver” if the disclosure was inadvertent, if the client took “reasonablesteps” to prevent the disclosure, and if the client promptly took reasonable steps to inform theopposing party of the disclosure and request return of the privileged information. Taking“reasonable steps” may likely include some method of verifying and checking on theeffectiveness, completeness, accuracy and quality of the searches for privileged communications.Among other methods, this may involve searching for known privileged communications amongthe documents to be produced prior to production or conducting other similar checks. Should aprivileged communication be inadvertently produced, counsel may have to submit an affidavit tothe court explaining the process it used in searching for privileged ESI, including verifying thatthe searches for privileged information were thorough and accurate, in order to secure a rulingthat the production was inadvertent and does not constitute a waiver of the privilege.In addition, Rule 502(d) and (e) provide that, if the parties enter into an agreementproviding that inadvertent production of privileged information shall not constitute a waiver of13539355.4- 23 -


the privilege, and the court incorporates that agreement into a court order, that order is binding,not only on the parties to the instant litigation, but also on non-parties in other actions brought ineither federal or state court. See Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) and (e). The drafters of Rule 502 reasonedthat it would be unlikely that parties would actually reduce the costs of their pre-productionreview of privileged information if the non-waiver agreement or court order referenced in Rule502 only applied to the instant litigation, and if a non-party could use any inadvertently producedprivileged communication against the client in another lawsuit. Therefore, the Rule provides thatthe inadvertent production does not constitute a waiver of the privilege in the federal courtproceeding in which it occurred or in any other action pending in federal or state court (includingNew York State Court).There is no equivalent to Rule 502 in New York State Courts. The ethical rulesapplicable in New York provide that if a lawyer receives a document that may be privileged andthe lawyer “knows or reasonably should know that the document was inadvertently sent,” thelawyer “shall promptly notify the sender.” Rules of Professional Conduct, R. 4.4(b). There is noobligation to refrain from reviewing the information or to return the document. Therefore, incases pending in New York State Courts, counsel should consider entering into a non-waiveragreement and requesting the court to incorporate the non-waiver agreement into an order,although that order would not be subject to Rule 502(d) and would not be controlling in otheractions. A non-waiver agreement or an order would provide protection for an inadvertentproduction which is not otherwise provided by New York law.13539355.4- 24 -


GUIDELINE NO. 12: Counsel should take reasonable steps to contain the costs ofe-discovery. To that end, counsel should be knowledgeable of developments intechnology regarding searching and producing ESI and should be knowledgeable ofthe evolving custom and practice in reviewing ESI. Counsel should evaluatewhether such technology and/or such practices should be used in an action,considering the volume of ESI, the form of ESI and other relevant factors.Comments: The volume of ESI involved in preservation and discovery substantially increasesthe costs of litigation. The lion’s share of these costs is incurred during the review phase of e-discovery, when lawyers review ESI to identify relevant information for production, designateprivileged information and documents for withholding, categorize information for use indepositions, and otherwise review the ESI. Clients incur additional costs in identifying,searching, preserving, collecting, extracting, loading and preparing ESI for production. Thesecosts can be substantial where the volume of ESI possessed by the client is significant.The aggregate cost of e-discovery can be most effectively controlled by implementingproactive programs, such as document retention policies, hold and collection procedures,adjustments to IT practices, user education and other measures beyond the scope of theseGuidelines. For example, proper implementation of an effective document retention policypursuant to which a client, in the ordinary course of business when no legal hold is in place,retains only ESI that it needs for business purposes and discards non-useful ESI that it has noobligation to retain, may reduce the volume of ESI in the client’s records. This may reduce thecost of searching those records through e-discovery. But in practice, many litigators arecontacted by or introduced to a client after litigation is anticipated or has commenced and theduty to preserve ESI has been triggered. Proactive programs involving the deletion of ESI in theordinary course of business should be suspended once litigation is anticipated or pending.Technical developments may be used to help reduce the cost of review and improve theaccuracy of the review. Computer software, if implemented and effectuated properly, canidentify relevant documents as well as, if not better than, human review of each document andmay be more accurate and more cost-effective than traditional, manual document review.Individual clients and small businesses, and clients involved in cases in which the amountin controversy is not substantial, should attempt to contain the costs of e-discovery by attemptingto agree with counsel at the preliminary conference to limit e-discovery as much as reasonablypossible given the facts and circumstances of the case. For example, the parties may agree tolimit the number of custodians whose ESI is produced, the parties may agree to the form ofproduction and the search terms to be used, and the parties may agree to produce ESI, at leastinitially, only from the most convenient, least expensive and least burdensome sources.If a client seeks to work with a vendor or if counsel determines that retaining a vendor isnecessary to produce, safely and effectively, the volume of ESI involved in the particular case,counsel should proceed with care. The process of “handling” ESI for legal compliance purposesis the subject of ongoing technical research and development, with vendors racing to outdo eachother in selling their product’s effectiveness and value. Lawyers should be careful not to adviseclients regarding a vendor’s products without adequate research and experience. In many cases,13539355.4- 25 -


consideration should be given to having the client retain the vendor directly. Counsel andvendors should clearly demarcate their respective responsibilities with respect to the productionof ESI to achieve cost efficiencies and avoid mistakes.Research has shown that whether ESI review is performed by humans or by computers,relevant information may be overlooked and not produced, and irrelevant documents may“infect” productions. Thus, lawyers should consider focusing on improving the process used toidentify relevant ESI and focusing on testing that will validate the results of the process.13539355.4- 26 -


GUIDELINE NO. 13: Parties should discuss the expected costs and potentialburdens, if any, presented by e-discovery issues as early in the case as possible. Ifcounsel expects that the client will incur disproportionate, significant costs for e-discovery or that e-discovery will otherwise present a financial burden to the client,counsel should endeavor to enter into an agreement with opposing counsel toallocate the costs of e-discovery or, if necessary, seek a court order as early in thecase as possible and before the costs are incurred, allocating the costs of e-discoveryand identifying which party pays for what e-discovery costs.Comments: Issues relating to the sharing or shifting of the costs of e-discovery usually do notarise when both parties to a litigation are of the same size or financial means, or are seekingsimilar amounts and/or types of ESI. However, when there is a divergence between the partiesand one party believes it can demonstrate that it will incur a disproportionate share of the costs ofproducing ESI, that party: (i) should consider seeking the agreement of opposing counsel toshare the e-discovery costs; or (ii) should consider making an application to the court for anorder that the costs should be allocated between the parties. It is unlikely that the opposing partywould agree to assume additional costs of e-discovery absent a court order, but certaincircumstances may result in such an agreement and some courts require counsel to try to resolvediscovery disputes with opposing counsel before making an application to the court.A request for an order allocating costs of e-discovery should be made as early as possiblein the litigation, such as at the preliminary conference or at an early status conference or, ifnecessary, by motion. If possible, the request should be made before such costs are actuallyincurred. The application may be based on proof of any facts that increase the cost of e-discovery, such as, the excessive cost of review or recovery of ESI which is stored, for instance,on backup tapes, or opposing counsel’s overbroad request, or a request for ESI from too manycustodians. The moving party may seek an order, for example, directing that e-discovery costsshould be allocated or shared by the two parties, or that a portion of the costs should be shifted tothe opposing party, or that discovery should be conducted in phases, or tiers, with the productionof ESI that is less expensive to produce occurring first, and any additional, more expensiveproduction from other sources occurring only if the opposing party demonstrates it is necessary.The motion should be supported by a detailed analysis of reasons why the moving party shouldnot assume such a financial burden. Where appropriate, consideration should be given toproviding an expert affidavit explaining the technical reasons why the e-discovery is soexpensive. Counsel should be prepared that a court may not immediately decide the issue of costshifting and may adopt a “wait and see” approach, by denying the party’s application, withoutprejudice to submitting the application at a later date, such as at the close of discovery, or at orafter trial.The rule regarding the allocation of e-discovery costs is different if the case is pending infederal court versus New York State Court. In federal court, the party producing the ESIgenerally pays for the cost of production. This general rule is altered if there are specialcircumstances, a court order or a party agreement. But in New York State Court, as betweenparties, the CPLR has no rule specifically mandating cost-shifting. Nevertheless, some courtshave found that the “New York rule” is that the party requesting the ESI generally pays.13539355.4- 27 -


However, decisional authority also exists in New York that each party should bear the cost of itsown production.13539355.4- 28 -


GUIDELINE NO. 14: Courts may issue sanctions for spoliation, or the intentionalor negligent destruction or failure to preserve relevant ESI.Comments: Courts have ample authority to issue sanctions for spoliation arising from specificrules or broad inherent authority. Moreover, courts have wide latitude to determine the type ofsanction for spoliation in any given case -- regardless of whether the spoliator intentionallydestroyed evidence or did so through inadvertent negligence. Sanctions for spoliation haveincluded, for example:monetary fines against the client and/or counsel, including but not limited topayment of attorneys’ fees;adverse inference instructions to the jury (e.g., instructing the jury that it mayassume that the lost evidence was harmful to the spoliator);evidentiary preclusion; and,striking a pleading or granting a default judgment against the spoliator.Typically, courts will weigh the prejudice to the other party and the degree of culpability of thespoliator in determining whether and how to sanction spoliation. For the practitioner, this meansthat it is critical to go beyond simply establishing spoliation and use any means available to showthe relevance of the lost evidence. Given the obvious difficulty in proving the relevance ofinformation that no longer exists, some creativity may be required. The greater the degree ofculpability, the less courts are likely to require in terms of showing relevance.Establishing a sound litigation hold process, as discussed in detail above, is the best way to avoida spoliation disaster. However, it may also be important in showing good faith if spoliation doesoccur despite the best laid plans. Conversely, exposing the inadequacies in an adversary’sprocess -- or the lack thereof -- is an effective way to show the court that the spoliator had noregard for ESI preservation.13539355.4- 29 -


GLOSSARY 14AAdobe Acrobat—From Adobe Systems Incorporated, Acrobat is the leading program for creating and viewingPDF files—available in a free version and Professional version that enables file conversion, search, tagging, andother functions, and allows use of third-party add-ons.Application Server—A server dedicated to processing applications, such as, for example, accounting systems.Also see Server.Application Service Provider (ASP)—Third party that provides hosting services for a variety of informationprocessing functions, and within e-Discovery, a portion or all of the functions related to the e-Discovery lifecycle.Also see Hosting and Service Bureau.Archival Storage—Long-term storage of essential information under strict environmental and securityparameters, but not requiring immediate access.Attachments—Attachments fit two categories—True Attachments and Physical Attachments. True attachmentsare created by an author or custodian and referred to in the cover or parent document, such as an email with anattachment for example. Physical attachments are bound, clipped, or stapled without any reference by the author orcustodian to the attachment. Also see Unitization.Audio File—A file containing analog or digital sound elements, which can be played (heard) through an outputdevice.Auditability—The transparency, openness, or receptiveness of a system or process to being examined, withinherent features such as logs that facilitate the examination process.Audit Log/Trail—Chronological record of selected information such as computer user activity for examplethat might include logins, logouts, files accessed, actions performed, and communications in and out.Automated Litigation Support (ALS) Systems—ALS Systems are the application of specialized softwareprograms to facilitate execution of functions within the e-Discovery lifecycle. ALS Systems are considered essentialto the effectiveness of performing required functions and achieving objectives within the e-Discovery lifecycle.BBackup Storage—Exact copy of ESI stored separately from the original to serve as a source for recovery in theevent of a system problem or disaster.Backup Tape—Magnetic tape used to store backup copies of ESI.Bates Number—A unique serial number electronically impressed on every page of a document collection.Often used in conjunction with a suffix or prefix to identify the producing party, the case, or other relevantinformation. Bates numbering was originally done by manually stamping the numbers onto hard copy originals.Best Practices—Methods generally accepted and promulgated within an industry as being superior over others.Bibliographical or Objective Coding—Recording objective information, such as date created, author,recipient, and copies, from electronic documents and associating that information with a specific electronicdocument.Blowback—A hard copy set of documents printed from digital images, and usually produced in a batch from acoded database that enables automatic sorting and grouping of the documents.Boolean Search—Use of logical operators such as “and”, “or”, and “not” to include or exclude terms from asearch. Also see Proximity Search.14Reprinted from ESI Handbook: Sources, Technology and Practice, written by Adam I. Cohen and Edward Kalbaugh,Wolters Kluwer Publishers, 2009, with permission from Wolters Kluwer Publishers.13539355.4- 30 -


Broadband—Designation for communication networks, such a fiber optics, having higher throughput thanother networks.Burn—Copying files to a removable media, usually a CD or DVD.Byte—Consists of 8 bits as the basic capacity measurement for most computer data, and increases in incrementsof 1,000 expressed as Kilobyte, Megabyte, Gigabyte, Terabyte, Petabyte, Exabyte, Zettabyte, and Yottabyte. Alsosee Chapter 5, Overview of File and Storage Systems, for Table of Storage Capacity.CCartridge—See Tape Cartridge.Case Management Services—A type of litigation support service to help prepare lawyers, law firms, and legaldepartments to try a case. Specific services may include interviewing witnesses, document review, and casepreparation.Case Management Software—Litigation collaboration software that helps law firms and third parties preparefor and manage a case.CD (Compact Disc)—A type of optical disc storage media that includes read only (CD-ROM), write once thenread only (CD-R), and write multiple/read multiple (CD-RW).Certificate—Electronic affidavit vouching for the identity of the transmitter. Also see PKI Digital Signature.Chain-of-Custody—Documentation and testimony regarding the possession, movement, handling, and locationof evidence from the time it is obtained to the time it is presented in court; used to prove that evidence has not beenaltered or tampered with in any way; necessary both to assure admissibility and probative value.Child—See Parent/Child.CIO—Chief Information Officer.Clawback Agreement—Agreement between parties to a litigation outlining procedures to protect againstwaiver of privilege or work product protection due to inadvertent production of documents or information.Client—Any computing device that requests a service of another computer system. A Thin Client is a wired orwireless device that depends on a host for application processing. A Thick Client is a wired or wireless device thatmay request a service of another computer system, but also has its own computing capability.Cloud Computing—Accessing files or using software through the Internet, generally via a service provider.CMS—Content Management Systems are collaboration systems used to manage the creation andcommunication of corporate documents.Coding—The inclusion of bibliographical information about each document into an automated litigationsupport program so that an affidavit or list can be produced in compliance with applicable rules. Coding also enablessorting and grouping in line with relevancy and privilege review. Coding usually includes the following basicinformation: Author, Bates Number, Date, Document title and type, and Recipient.Coding Manual—Document providing instructions and information related to the coding function performedwithin the review process of e-Discovery. Also see Coding.Collection—Process of harvesting ESI from various sources for processing and review phases e-Discovery.Compliance (Management)—Process of adhering to policy, legal, or regulatory requirement.Compression—Process for reducing the size of files to reduce storage space and bandwidth required for accessand transmission.Computer Forensics—See Forensics.Computer Memory—See RAM.Concept Search—Taking into account the context within which search words appear to ascertain meaning.Also see Search.13539355.4- 31 -


Contextual Search—Searching ESI whereby the surrounding text is analyzed to determine relevancy. Also seeSearch.Correlation Search—A statistical method (Latent Semantic Indexing and Analysis) for finding the underlyingsemantic relationship of terms and their correlation, whereby the presence of one or more terms could confersignificance to a document. A common example would be the relationship of words like law, lawyer, attorney, andlawsuit as representative of a shared meaning. Correlation search enables grouping and clustering of ESI intomeaningful categories.CSO—Chief Security Officer.Culling—Removing documents from collections to be produced or reviewed. Also see Harvesting.Custodian—The owner or person responsible for safekeeping of ESI.DData—For practical purposes, the building blocks of ESI. Technically, data also includes elements that reside inmany places within computing and storage devices, not accessible to users, such as program code, for example. Alsosee Data Element and ESI.Data (Database) Administrator—IT person responsible for maintaining databases.Database—The term database commonly refers to a collection of records and the software (databasemanagement system) used to manage user interaction. Technically, a database and a database management systemare separate entities. There are a variety of database structures from which ESI is obtained, including DataWarehouse, Dimensional, Flat, Hierarchical, Network, Object, and Relational. (See Chapter 8, Databases, for adefinition of each type of database.)Database Server—A server optimized for database transactions.Data Element—A combination of characters or bytes referring to one separate piece of information, such asname or address.Data Sampling—Method of examining a statistically representative portion of ESI to determine how much of auniverse of ESI is responsive.Data Warehouse—Special form of large-scale dimensional database optimized for intensive queries of diversebusiness data elements analyzed and used to derive business insights and intelligence.Deduplication—Deduplication is a software or hardware-based process for identifying exact or near-duplicatefiles within a collection, and only storing the original and any changes to the original. This eliminates fileredundancy, reduces storage volume, and reduces the time required in discovery of ESI. Vertical deduplicationlocates duplicates within the records and information of a single custodian, while horizontal deduplication appliesglobally across all custodians. Also see Near Deduplication, Block-level Deduplication, and Single Instance Storage.Deleted Data/File—ESI residing on media space that has been designated as available for reuse. The deletedESI remains intact until it is overwritten. Deletion may be automated or manual and intentional or unintentional.Deliverable—A project management term used to describe a tangible work product.Digital Fingerprint—Fixed-length hash code that uniquely represents the binary content of a file. Also seeHash.Digital Signature—See Certificate and PKI Digital Signature.Directory—A simulated file folder or container used to organize files and directories in a hierarchical or treelikestructure.Disc Drive—See Hard Drive.Disc Mirroring—Process for protecting ESI by storing an exact copy of ESI on a second storage media duringstorage of the original ESI. Also see Mirroring.Document Classification—Using a field bibliographical coding to group documents into categories such ascorrespondence, memo, report, and article for example.13539355.4- 32 -


Document Lifecycle—Phases inclusive of the functions to create, communicate, modify, store, retrieve, anddestroy.DoD 5015—Department of Defense standard for records management.DVD (Digital Video Disc)—A type of optical disc storage media that can be written to and read from. DVDsare faster, have larger capacity, and support more data formats than CDs.Ee-Discovery—The preparation, preservation, collection, processing, review, and production of evidence inelectronic form in response to business, regulatory, or legal requirements. e-Discovery is also sometimes referred toas EDD (Electronic Data Discovery).e-Discovery Process Lifecycle—Phases inclusive of the functions: Preparation, Search/Collection, Processing,Culling, Review/Analysis, and Production/Presentation.e-Discovery Readiness Program—The process and initiatives (projects) to ensure adequate preparation for andoptimization of the e-Discovery process.e-Discovery Response Team—Team formed to execute e-Discovery requirements in response to investigationor litigation.e-Discovery Vault—A secure, central repository for storage of discovered ESI, that is accessible by authorizedusers.Email (Electronic Mail)—An electronic messaging system for communicating information and attacheddocuments to one or more parties. Emails consist of addresses, header information, the message body, attachments,and metadata.Email Administrator—IT person responsible for maintaining email systems.Email String/Thread—Series of emails linked together by email responses and forwarding, often treated as asingle document.Encryption—A protection process using complex algorithms to render the contents of a message or fileunusable or unintelligible to computers or persons not authorized to use/read it.Encryption Key—A data value that is used to encrypt and decrypt data.Endorser—A small printer in a scanner that adds a document-control number or other endorsement to eachscanned sheet.ePaper—Electronic version of a document, usually in PDF or TIFF file format.ESI (Electronically Stored Information)—ESI is the term adopted in Rules 26(a)(1), 33, and 34 of the Rulesof Civil Procedure, Amended December 2006, to include any type of information that can be stored electronically,and to acknowledge that electronically stored information is discoverable. It is intended to be broad enough to coverall current types of computer-based information, and flexible enough to encompass future changes and technologicaldevelopments.Exabyte—See Byte.Exchange Server—A server running Microsoft Exchange messaging and collaboration software. It is widelyused by enterprises using Microsoft infrastructure solutions. Among other things, Microsoft Exchange managesemail, shared calendars, and tasks.FFile—Collection of ESI stored under a specified name on storage media.File Conversion—Changing data or a file from one format to another. For example, converting native filesfrom their original source format to an image-based format such as PDF or TIFF.File Deletion—See Deleted File.File Format/Extension—Three characters (usually) following a file name, to designate the type of file, which13539355.4- 33 -


defines how it is stored and used. See the Appendix, File Formats Used Worldwide.File Server—Computing device optimized to store files for access by multiple users.File System—Combination of software and logical structures used to organize and manage storage and accessto ESI on storage media.File System Metadata—System generated metadata stored externally from the ESI and used by the system totrack ESI. Also see Metadata.Filename—Name of a file excluding root drive and directory path information.Filtering—See Search.Fingerprinting—See Forensics and Hash.Flash Drive—See USB Drive.Forensic Capture/Copy—A method of preserving the original state of a physical storage media, and copyingthe entire contents of the media to preserve files and folders, and all other information on the media, includingdeleted files, file fragments, metadata, and other data. Forensic capture applies compression and encryption forprotection and to guard against allegations of spoliation.Forensics—The scientific examination and analysis of ESI while residing on storage media or after beingretrieved from storage media, in a manner that conforms to legal requirements for evidence collection for use in acourt of law.FRCP (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)—Rules that govern civil actions brought in U.S. federal districtcourts. Many states enact similar rules.Full Text Search—Search of ESI for specific words, numbers, and/or combinations or patterns. Also seeSearch.Fuzzy Search—Searches allowing and finding close approximations of words, such as misspellings forexample, often to overcome errors during OCR scanning. Also see Search.GGigabyte (GB)—See Byte.Governance—Formal oversight of and direction to a process or program by one or more senior persons withauthority.HHard Disk Drive (HDD) Cartridge—Small, removable device containing a hard disk. Cartridge fits into adocking station connected to computer via USB port.Hard (Disk) Drive—Storage device consisting of one or more spinning magnetic media platters on which datacan be written and erased.Harvesting—The process of retrieving and collecting ESI from storage devices/media for processing andloading to Automated Litigation Support (ALS) Systems.Hash—A relatively small, unique number representing the unique digital “fingerprint” of data, resulting fromapplying a mathematical algorithm to the set of data. The fingerprint may be called hash, hash sum, hash value, orhash code. Used to validate the authenticity and/or integrity of data.Hosting—Provisioning of applications, storage, and Internet access by a third party.HTML (HyperText Markup Language)—Document presentation format used on the Internet that applies tagsto enable Web browsers to display text and images.HTTP (HyperText Transfer Protocol)—Underlying protocol used by the Internet to define how messages areformatted and transmitted, and what actions Web servers and browsers should perform in response to variouscommands.13539355.4- 34 -


Hybrid Search—Enables search and analytics of structured and unstructured data from single interface withoutrequiring change in formats. Also see Search.Hyperlink—Underlying code—represented on screen by underlining words or highlighted graphics—within adocument that redirects to another location when clicked on by a user. Documents that include hyperlinks tonavigate within the document are called HyperText.IIdentification—One of the first steps in the e-Discovery process, finding discoverable and relevant ESI withinvarious sources.Image File Formats—Document images can be saved using different file formats, including JPG, GIF, PDF,single-page TIFF, or multi-page TIFF. ALS Systems can usually handle a variety of different formats.Imaging—See Scanning.Index—A technique used in information systems to enable faster and more efficient search and retrieval ofinformation in files and databases, typically consisting of a separate file or database of key data elements (dates,names, keywords, etc.), parsed from a source, with pointers to the original source.Information Asset (Source) Management—The inventory and tracking of custodians, and the IT devices andESI related to them.Instant Messaging (IM)—Form of electronic communication involving immediate text correspondencebetween two or more online users.Internet—Worldwide, publicly accessible series of interconnected computer networks permittingcommunication among users.Intranet—Private network that uses Internet-related technologies to provide services internal to an organizationor defined infrastructure.IP (Internet Protocol) Address—Unique address that electronic devices use to identify and communicate witheach other on a computer network using the Internet Protocol. Also see TCP/IP.ISP (Internet Service Provider)—Business providing access to the Internet for a fee. ISPs may be a source ofESI evidence through files stored on their servers. Also see Hosting and Service Bureau.IT (Information Technology) Infrastructure—The people, processes, hardware, network, and softwarecomponents collectively used for information processing and management within an organization.JJournal—Chronological record of data processing operations. Journals may be used to reconstruct previous orupdated versions of a file. In database management systems, journals are records of all stored data items that havevalues changed as a result of processing and manipulation of the data.Journaling—Copying of sent and received emails in native format to a secondary storage device for retentionor preservation.JPEG—Compression algorithm commonly used for still images.KKeyword Searching—The use of key words and Boolean techniques to search for documents containingrelevant information. Also see Search.Kilobyte (KB)—See Byte.LLAN (Local Area Network)—A group of computers at a single location that are connected via wired orwireless networks. Also see Network.Lead Date—The date of a parent document, or if no parent, the document's own date. Lead date is used in adatabase as an option to enable chronological sorting of documents by parent, so that any attachments remain in13539355.4- 35 -


chronological sequence.Legacy Data—ESI residing on outmoded or replaced storage devices for which little or no processingcapability or knowledge remains within the organization, or which has become too costly to maintain effectively.Legacy System—Outmoded IT components for which little or no processing capability or knowledge remainswithin the organization, or which has become too costly to maintain effectively.Legal (Litigation) Hold—Communication issued as a result of current or reasonably anticipated litigation,audit, legal, or regulatory matter that suspends the normal disposition or processing of ESI. Hold orders or Holdnotices may also be referred to Preservation, Suspension, or Freeze orders or notices.Linking—The ability within an ALS System to connect evidence, transcripts, notes, pleadings, websites, andother documents to each other with hypertext links.Load File—A data file is a critical deliverable from the scanning/coding function that establishes links betweenrecords in a database and the document image files to which each record pertains. Without a correctly structuredload file, documents and their respective database records will not be in sync.Lotus Domino—IBM’s enterprise-level server product that hosts Lotus Notes and Web server capabilities.Lotus Notes—IBM’s enterprise-level collaboration suite that provides email, calendars, custom applicationdevelopment, database, and Web services.LRP (Litigation Response Plan)—Developed to guide e-Discovery process.MMaintenance Programs—Applications that run at scheduled intervals according to predefined rules tomaintain ESI and IT infrastructure components.Meet-and-Confer—Meeting between counsels under Rule 26 of FRPC.Megabyte—See Byte.Metadata—Metadata provides information about other information sources—origins, usage, authenticity, andcharacteristics that provide additional meaning and context, and accordingly is considered discoverable evidence.Also, vendors may add metadata as a result of processing, most of which is used for process reporting, chain-ofcustody,and ESI accountability. See Chapter 6, Native Files and Metadata.Metadata Comparison—Comparison of specified metadata as the basis for deduplication without regard tocontent. Also see Deduplication.Metrics—Units of measurement, and specifically within e-Discovery, those discernable units, such asdocuments, files, etc., that lend themselves to quantification.Mirror Image—See Forensic Capture.Mirroring—Duplication of ESI for backup or to distribute Internet or network traffic among several serverswith identical ESI.MPEG (1-4)—Various standards applied to compression/decompression of full motion video to digital.Multimedia—Combinations of video, audio, text, and graphics in digital form.NNative Files—The original form in which a document or file is created by a software application. Two goodexamples are spreadsheets and word processing documents. Native files contain the content that users see, such astext and spreadsheet numbers, and information (metadata) about the document that users normally do not see, suchas author and creation date.Native File Review—A process that requires opening the document in the application in which it was created,or in a special application capable of supporting native file review.Natural Language Search—Use of plain language without requiring special connectors or preciseterminology. Also see Boolean Search.13539355.4- 36 -


Near Deduplication—Identification, tagging, or grouping files that do not have the same hash values, but aresimilar with minor differences in content and/or metadata. An example would be the various threads in an emaildistribution.Near-Line Data/Storage—Use of offline storage to retrieve information in near real time for online use viarobotics moving storage media (tape cartridges or optical discs) from storage library to read/write device. Also seeOffline Data/Storage.Network—Two or more computers and other devices connected together for the exchange and sharing of ESIand resources.Network Administrator—IT person responsible for maintaining networks.Network Database—See Database.Node—Any device connected to a network.OObject Database—See Database.Objective Coding—Manually reviewing a document and completing database fields, such as Bates number,author, recipient, cc, date, title, type, source, characteristics, and keywords. Objective coding, unlike subjectivecoding, does not require the coder to exercise discretion or be familiar with a particular case in order to correctlycode the document. Also see Coding.Offline Data/Storage—ESI storage in a system outside the online network (network in daily use), and onlyaccessible by means of the offline storage system, which usually requires manual intervention. Also see Near-LineData/Storage, Online Data/Storage, and Storage.Online Review—Use of an ALS System by one or more persons to perform one or more of the reviewfunctions.Online Data/Storage—ESI storage in active systems used in day-to-day operations.Ontology—Collection of categories and their relationships to other categories and to words, and often used tofind related documents when given a specific query.Operating System (OS)—Software that directs the overall activity of a computer, network, or system, enablingall other software programs and applications to operate.Operational Storage—Storage of information in active use for day-to-day operations. Also see OnlineData/Storage.Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and Optical Word Recognition (OWR)—OCR and OWR arecomputerized processes that generate a searchable text file from a digital image or picture file when it is scanned. Astheir names imply, OCR recognizes characters, and OWR recognizes words. OCR software compares the shape ofletters in the image with its library of fonts and then generates the appropriate digital letter. Accuracy of OCR islargely dependent on the quality of the original document. OWR uses multiple OCR engines and compares results toa built-in dictionary. OWR is more accurate than OCR especially on older or poor-quality originals.Outlook—Microsoft program that includes email, task management, and a calendar. All data is saved in asingle PST file on the user’s hard disc drive.Outsourcing—Outsourcing refers to the shifting of work from one organization to another, including fromwithin an organization in one country to an organization in another country. Within the e-Discovery lifecycle,Coding is the function most generally outsourced to reduce costs. Also see Service Bureau.Overwrite—To manually or automatically record or copy new data over existing data, permanently deleting theoriginal data.PParent/Child—A hierarchical arrangement in which a subordinate entity is the child of a superior entity. Anexample would be Microsoft’s file system tree structure, where one folder is the parent and folders under the parent13539355.4- 37 -


are child folders. Also, in e-Discovery, parent refers to the first, or cover, document and child refers to documentsattached to the first or cover document.Parsing—Transforms input text into a data structure suitable for later processing, while capturing the impliedhierarchy of the input. Data may be parsed from one source of ESI to another.Pattern Recognition/Matching—Pattern Recognition technology searches ESI for like patterns and flags, andextracts the pertinent data. Pattern matching technology compares one file’s content with another file’s content.PDA (Personal Digital Assistant)—Mobile handheld device containing common applications for organizingschedules and work.PDF (Portable Document Format)—Software from Adobe Systems Incorporated that converts single ormulti-page documents into Adobe’s proprietary format that captures the document’s original formatting features andenables display across a variety of computer platforms. PDF provides security, navigation tools, search, and otherfeatures that facilitate document exchange.PDF/A—The International Standards Organization (ISO) PDF specification for the long-term preservation ofarchived documents.PDF Conversion—Converting documents in another file format to PDF.Peripheral—Any accessory device attached to a computer, such as a disk drive, printer, modem, or to anetwork, such as router, or switch.Petabyte (PB)—See Byte.PKI (Public Key Infrastructure)—A security arrangement that enables computer users without prior contactto be authenticated to each other, and to use the public key information in their public key certificates to encryptmessages to each other.PKI Digital Signature—A method for providing authentication of any message using the Public KeyInfrastructure. A document or file may be digitally signed using the party’s private signature key, creating a digitalsignature that is stored with the document. Anyone can validate the signature on the document using the public keyfrom the digital certificate issued to the signer. Validating the digital signature confirms who signed it, and ensuresthat no alterations have been made to the document since it was signed.Presentation Process—Phase of the e-Discovery Lifecycle devoted to developing trial presentations.Preservation—The process of ensuring retention and protection from destruction or deletion of all potentiallyrelevant ESI. See also Spoliation.Preservation Letter/Notice/Order—See Legal Hold.Print Server—Server dedicated to delivering printing services via the network.Private Network—A network connected to the Internet but isolated by security measures allowing use of thenetwork only by authorized users.Privileged ESI—The compilation of ESI identified and logged as responsive and/or relevant, but withheld fromproduction on grounds of privilege.Privilege Review—Privilege review is often a combination of automated search and filtering combined withreading selected documents to determine and flag those considered privileged and to be excluded from production.Production ESI—The universe of ESI identified as responsive to requests and not withheld on the grounds ofprivilege, and exchanged via electronic media. Also see Quick Peek.Production Number—See Bates Number.Production Process—Phase of the e-Discovery Lifecycle devoted to “packaging” relevant ESI for delivery.Project Management—Formal methodology for managing resources to achieve objectives.Project Plan—One of the first deliverables under project management—defines project components and howthe project will move forward. Also see Deliverable.13539355.4- 38 -


Proximity Search—For text searches, the ability to look for words or phrases within a prescribed distance ofanother word or phrase.PST File Format—Used by the Microsoft Outlook program. Also see Outlook.QQuality Control—Formal method of controlling processes to ensure expected results.Query—Access to a database to retrieve information.Quick Peek—A production of ESI made available to the opposing party before being reviewed for privilege,confidentiality, or privacy, under stringent guidelines and restrictions to prevent waiver.RRAM (Random Access Memory)—Hardware in a computer that retains memory on a short-term basis andstores information while the computer is in use.Record—Information, regardless of medium or format, that has value to an organization.Records Management—Human and automated processes related to influencing the lifecycle of records inaccord with business, regulatory, and legal purpose.Redaction—The “blacking out” of information in documents to be produced. Redaction is usuallyaccomplished in an ALS System by overlay so the original document image is not altered. Redactions should bepermanent on documents included in final production.Relational Database—See Database.Relevancy Screening—The review of documents prior to scanning to eliminate irrelevant documents, usingsearch tools that can filter out irrelevant files by criteria such as date range, custodian, folder, or in the case ofemails, by date, author, or recipient.Residual Data—Term generally referring to any information not serving a current useful purpose on acomputer or storage media that may be recoverable using forensics techniques.Restore—The act of transferring ESI from a backup medium to an online system, and possibly recreation of theoriginal hardware and software operating environment.Review—One of the functions within the e-Discovery lifecycle whereby potentially responsive ESI is examinedand evaluated for selection of relevant ESI, including assertion of privilege or confidentiality for example.ROM (Read Only Memory)—Permanent hardware memory that can be read but not written to or changed,usually on a chip containing firmware (software on a chip) for starting the computer and running certain imbeddedsystem programs.Rule 26 Automatic Disclosure of ESI—Parties in litigation must provide a copy (or description by categoryand location) of ESI that will support that party’s claims and/or defenses.Rule 26 Enhanced Meet-and-Confer Requirements—Parties must meet and confer at the outset of the case todiscuss their plans and proposals regarding the conduct of the litigation, including any issues relating topreservation, disclosure, or discovery of ESI, including the form in which ESI should be produced and claims ofprivilege, or protection as trial-preparation material.Rule 26 Inadvertent Production of Privileged Information—If discovery information is subject to a claim ofprivilege, or protection as privileged trial-preparation material, the party making the claim may notify any party thatreceived the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party is required to promptly return,sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has and is not permitted to use or disclose theinformation until the claim is resolved.Rule 26 Production of Information “Not Reasonably Accessible”—A party need not provide discovery ofESI from sources that the party identifies as “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.” The partybeing asked to produce ESI bears the burden of demonstrating the information is not reasonably accessible becauseof undue burden or cost. Even if that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from that party if13539355.4- 39 -


the requesting party shows good cause.Rule 33 Production of ESI In Response To Interrogatories—Provides the option to respond to aninterrogatory by specifying and producing the business records, including ESI, which contain the answer.Rule 34 Production of ESI In Response To Requests For Production Of Documents—Requires productionof relevant and responsive, non-privileged ESI,.Rule 37 Safe Harbor Provision—Remedies for a party’s failure to respond to, or cooperate in, discovery.Amended Rule 37 provides that, absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose Rule 37 sanctions on aparty for failing to provide ESI lost as a result of the “routine, good faith operation of an electronic informationsystem.”Rule 45 Subpoena—For third parties to produce designated documents, electronically stored information, ortangible things in that person’s possession, custody, or control, or permit the inspection of premises.SSafe Harbor—See Rule 37.Sampling—Sampling refers to the process of testing a database or a large volume of ESI for the existence orfrequency of relevant information as an aid in determining whether to perform more extensive searches.Scanning—Converting text and images of a page of a paper document into a computer file as an image, asreadable text, or as a combination of both.Search—The use of various automated methods for identifying and finding potentially relevant ESI.Search and Collection—A phase of the e-Discovery Lifecycle devoted to finding and acquiring potentiallyrelevant ESI.Searchable PDF—A PDF document that retains the formatting and looks of the original document, and can betext-searched using Acrobat or third-party search tools.Server—A computer on a network that contains ESI, applications, or other services shared by multiple users ofthe network on their client PCs. See Chapter 3, Overview of the Information Technology Infrastructure.Service Bureau—Company that provides services such as scanning and coding to the litigation market. Alsosee ASP, Hosting, and Outsourcing.Situational Assessment—Examination to determine the current state in relation to the desired state, and touncover any problems related thereto. Usually followed by a gap-impact-risk (GIR) analysis. Also see GIR Analysis.Spoliation—The deliberate or inadvertent modification, loss, or destruction of evidence by a party who hasbeen put on notice of litigation but has failed to take appropriate steps to preserve potentially relevant information.Steering Committee—A group of stakeholders formed to provide governance and guidance to major programs.Storage—Placement of information on a storage device for day-to-day use (operational storage) or for disasterrecovery (backup storage) or for long-term retention (archival storage).Storage Device—Any device, such as a disc or tape drive serving as the host for storage media, capable ofstoring ESI.Storage Media—A medium for storing ESI, including magnetic tape, discs, CDs, DVDs, and solid stateelectronics for example.Structured ESI—Information organized by computer program in a consistent manner to allow manipulationusually via database structures that enable sorting, searching, and reporting for example. Also see Unstructured ESI.Subjective Coding—High-level legal analysis of documents in an ALS System that relates each relevantdocument to one or more appropriate legal or factual categories or issues as defined by the lead attorney.Suspension Notice—See Legal Hold.Synchronization—The ability to merge two or more copies of a database together, preserving rather thanoverwriting the latest changes made in any copy.13539355.4- 40 -


System Administrator—IT person responsible for developing and/or maintaining core infrastructure systems,as opposed to business applications.TTape Cartridge—A plastic housing for a tape reel and the preferred mechanism for use in tape-based storagesystems.Tape Drive—A hardware device used to store or backup ESI on a magnetic tape.Tape Recycling—Process of overwriting tapes with new data, usually on a fixed schedule involving taperotation.Tape Restoration—Process for harvesting ESI from tapes for e-Discovery or because tapes are damaged,obsolete, or difficult to maintain, and storing harvested ESI on alternative media.Task/Resource Schedule—A project management form used to define the timeline for tasks and people tocomplete deliverables. Also see Deliverable.Temporary File—Files temporarily stored on a computer by Internet browsers and office applications to enablefaster screen display. Forensic techniques may reveal computer usage through examination of temporary files.Terabyte—See Byte.Text Messaging—Sending/receiving short messages (160 characters or less) between mobile devices orcomputers.Thread—Usually refers to a series of communications on a particular topic such as might take place withemails, bulletin boards, or messaging systems.TIFF (Tagged Image File Format)—A widely used graphic file format for storing bit-mapped images withdifferent compression formats and resolutions.Transactional File System—Specialized file system enabling high volume transactions with fault tolerance,transaction roll back, and audit logging—typically used in financial systems.Transcript Formats—Discovery and trial transcripts available electronically that can be searched, annotated,linked, and organized into brief reports in ALS Systems and in dedicated transcript management programs.Transparency—The inherent feature of a process or system to be easily externally viewed or audited.Trial Presentation—The display of evidence via computer display at a hearing rather than by way of multiplephotocopies. Full-featured ALS Systems have built-in trial presentation features.True Attachments—See Attachments and Unitization.UUnstructured ESI—Information not easily readable by machine or suitable to a database structure, such asemail content, and audio or video files and unstructured text such as the body of an email or word processingdocument. Also see Structured ESI.USB Drive—Small removable storage device that uses flash memory and connects via a USB port.VValidation—Various automated processes used to ensure the accuracy of scanned images and codedinformation, and to verify the accuracy of attachment ranges and dates.Verbatim Coding—Extracting data from documents in a way that exactly matches the information as itappears in the documents.Vertical Deduplication—A process through which duplicate documents or information are eliminated within asingle custodial or production document set. Also see Deduplication.Voice Mail—Recording in a file of analog or digital voice message.VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol)—Transmission of voice across an Internet connection, often with limited13539355.4- 41 -


attachments such as images and video.WWAN—Wide Area Network.Web Repository—A Web Repository is part of an ALS System made available for users to perform requiredfunctions of document review via secure connection to the Internet, with no local software required other than aWeb browser.Web Server—Server specialized for transactions via the Internet.Workflow—The automation of a function or process whereby ESI or tasks are passed from one user to anotherfor action according to predefined rules.WORM Discs—WORM (Write Once Read Many) discs are primarily used to archive information that mustnot be altered.XXML (Extensible Markup Language)—Specification for enabling users to define their own elements tofacilitate sharing structured data across different information systems, particularly the Internet.YYottabyte—See Byte.ZZettabyte—See Byte.13539355.4- 42 -


BIBLIOGRAPHYBOOKSBOB BECKER, RALPH KIMBALL, JOY MUNDY, MARGY ROSS & WARREN THORNTHWAITE, THE DATAWAREHOUSE LIFECYCLE TOOLKIT (2 nd ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2008).ADAM I. COHEN & DAVID J. LENDER, ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY: LAW AND PRACTICE (New York: AspenPublishers 2007).ADAM I. COHEN & EDWARD KALBAUGH, ESI HANDBOOK: SOURCES, TECHNOLOGY AND PRACTICE (WoltersKluwer Publishers 2009).ENCYCLOPEDIA OF TECHNOLOGY TERMS (Greg Wiegand, ed., Indiana: QUE Publishing 2002, Updated 2008).Internet: www.whatis.comRONALD J. HEDGES, DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION: SURVEYING THE LEGALLANDSCAPE (BNA Books 2007).SHARON D. NELSON, BRUCE A. OLSON & JOHN W. SIMEK, ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AND DISCOVERYHANDBOOK: FORMS, CHECKLISTS AND GUIDELINES (Illinois: American Bar Association 2006).W. CURTIS PRESTON, BACKUP & RECOVERY (California: O'Reilly Media 2007).R. KELLY RANIER, JR. & EFRAIM TURBAN, INTRODUCTION TO INFORMATION SYSTEMS: SUPPORTING ANDTRANSFORMING BUSINESS (2 nd ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2008).STEVEN A. WEISS & DAVID COALE, E-DISCOVERY (Illinois: American Bar Association 2007).ARTICLES/PAPERS/REPORTSAdvisory Group to the New York State-Federal Judicial Council, Harmonizing the Pre-Litigation Obligation toPreserve Electronically Stored Information in New York State and Federal Courts, September 2010.Association of the Bar of the City of New York: Report of Joint Committee on Electronic Discovery, Explosionof Electronic Discovery in All Areas of Litigation Necessitates Changes in CPLR, August 2009.Jenifer A. L. Battle, Saving ESI With ‘Litigation Hold’ Letters, THE LEGAL INTELLIGENCER, July 13, 2007.Jenifer A. L. Battle, Saving ESI With ‘Litigation Hold’ Letters, Law.com, July 13, 2007, available athttp://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1184231195691.Steven C. Bennett, Are E-Discovery Costs Recoverable By A Prevailing Party? 20:3 ALBANY LAW J. OF SCI. &TECHNOL. 537-57 (2010).Steven C. Bennett & David Cloud, Coping with Metadata, 61:2 MERCER L. REV. 471-89 (2010).Steven C. Bennett, Ethical Dimensions Of The New Federal Rules On E-Discovery, 16:12 AM. LAW CORP.COUNSEL Supp. 16-18 (2009).Marla S. Bergman & Steven C. Bennett, Managing E-Discovery Costs, PRACTICAL LITIGATOR 57-63 (July2009).Mark A. Berman, Case Law Remains Unclear as to Who Pays for What, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL, Jan. 4,2011.Mark A. Berman, Overbroad Demands and Improper Denials, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL, March 1, 2011.Mark A. Berman, Anne D. Taback, & Aaron E. Zerykier, Now That Everything Is Collected, How to ProduceIt? NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL, March 21, 2011.Mark A. Berman, Recent Rulings Founded on Spoliation of ESI, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL, May 3, 2011.H. Christopher Boehning & Daniel J. Toal, Cost-Shifting and Accessible Data in EDD, NEW YORK LAW13539355.4- 43 -


JOURNAL, June 28, 2007.John Chivvas, Discovering E-Discovery, ROUGH NOTES MAGAZINE, October 2006.John Chivvas, The Evolution of Document Management, ROUGH NOTES MAGAZINE, September 2007.Adam I. Cohen, How New Technology Reduces the True Cost of e-Discovery, LAW JOURNAL NEWSLETTER,Volume 25, Number 2, May 2007.Adam I. Cohen, Understanding e-Discovery Risks, FTI Consulting, Inc., 2007.Patrick M. Connors, Which Party Pays the Costs of Document Disclosure? 29 PACE L.R. 441 (2008-09).Michael Dolan, & Dario Olivas, Legal Process Outsourcing of First Level Document Review, TUSKER GROUP,available at http://www.sourcingmag.com/content/c060918a.asp.Meg Fletcher, E-Discovery Falls Hardest On Insurance Industry, BUSINESS INSURANCE EUROPE, May 2007.Brian Fonseca, E-discovery Rules Still Causing IT Headaches, COMPUTERWORLD, Jan. 7, 2008.Ann G. Fort, Rising Costs of E-Discovery Requirements Impacting Litigants, FULTON COUNTY DAILY REPORTMarch 20, 2007.Lynn Haber, E-Discovery: Reducing the Cost of Review, SEMANTEC CORPORATION, Feb. 14, 2007, available athttp://www.devx.com/symantec/Article/33749.Robert L. Haig, Making the Case for Change, ABA JOURNAL, April 2008.Conrad J. Jacoby, E-Discovery Update: Recognizing Hidden Logistical Bottlenecks in E-Discovery, atLLRX.com (April 24, 2007).Stanley P. Jaskiewicz, E-Lawyering Requires Rethinking Technology and Law, Internet Law & Strategy, THEESTRIN REPORT, March 16, 2007, available athttp://estrinlegaled.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/03/elawyering_requ.html.Stanley P. Jaskiewicz, Follow the Mail: Don’t Let Your Employees’ Multiple E-Mail Boxes Become AnElectronic Nightmare, E-DISCOVERY LAW & STRATEGY, July 10, 2007, available athttp://infogovernance.blogspot.com/2007/07/follow-mail-legal-technology.html.Joint E-Discovery Subcommittee of The Association of The Bar of the City of New York, MANUAL FOR STATETRIAL COURTS REGARDING ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY COST ALLOCATION, Spring 2009.Preggy Bresnick Kendler, ed., Virtual Roundtable: The Age of e-Discovery, INSURANCE + TECHNOLOGY,March 2007, CMP Media.Elizabeth Millard, IM and Texting Are Here To Stay, PROCESSOR MAGAZINE, Oct. 12, 2007.Vivian Tero, State of Play: Litigation Readiness of the Corporate IT Infrastructure, IDC, May 8, 2008.The New York State Unified Court System, A Report to the Chief Judge and Chief Administrative Judge,Electronic Discovery in the New York State Courts, February 2010.Alex Vorro, e-Discovery: A Way To Paperless Organization, INSURANCE NETWORKING NEWS ANDSOURCEMEDIA, INC. , April 1, 2008.Kenneth J. Withers, Annotated Case Law on Electronic Discovery, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER, July 5, 2006,available at www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/ElecDi09.pdf.INTERNET REFERENCESAmerican Bar Association (Resources for Lawyers), at http://www.abanet.org/.CGOC (Compliance Governance Oversight Council), at http://www.cgocouncil.com/about/index.html.EDD Blog Online (Information source and discussion forum for e-Discovery issues) , athttp://www.eddblogonline.com/.13539355.4- 44 -


e-Discovery Law, at http://www.e-Discoverylaw.com.EDRM (E-Discovery Reference Model and forum for legal and e-Discovery practitioners), athttp://www.edrm.net.Federal Judicial Center (Materials on Electronic Discovery), athttp://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/autoframe?openform&url_l=/public/home.nsf/inavgeneral?openpage&url_r=/public/home.nsf/pages/196.FindLaw for Legal Professionals (e-Discovery articles), at http://technology.findlaw.com/.International Journal of Digital Evidence (Discussion forum in the field of digital evidence hosted by UticaCollege), at http://www.utica.edu/academic/institutes/ecii/ijde/index.cfm.IT Management Resource Centers (Information and discussion forum for variety of IT functional areas andissues), at http://www.itmanagement.com/.Law.Com, Legal Technology (e-Discovery articles and blogs) http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/edd.jsp.Litigation Support Vendors Association (not-for-profit forum for major software companies covering e-Discovery) http://www.lsva.com/pn/.LLRX.com (Law and technology Web journal for legal community) http://www.llrx.com/.NIST (U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology) http://www.nist.gov.Sedona Conference (Forum for legal and e-discovery practitioners) http://www.thesedonaconference.org/.13539355.4- 45 -

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines