I’ve been buried in big data for the last week, so look forward to my annual pilgrimage to our nation’s capital for the Georgetown University Law Center’s Advanced E-Discovery Institute, starting Thursday.  Some years the GULC AEDI is good, and some years it’s great; but, every year it’s a boisterous class reunion for the Sedona Bubble Boys and Girls for whom the Institute has become an unmissable event.

Though I mourn the Institute’s waning efforts to teach the “e” in e-discovery, the 2013 Institute nonetheless retains its two finest features: the opening case update and the closing judicial round table.  No other conference brings together a bigger, brighter constellation of e-discovery “rock star” judges than Georgetown.

This year, I’m gratified to be a part of a new track dedicated to teaching cooperation in practice, offered by the GULC in conjunction with The Sedona Conference®.  It’s a taste of the two-day Sedona Conference Cooperation Training program in which I served on the faculty in Phoenix last February. Continue reading →

I’m on a crusade to underscore the need for lawyer competence in that crucial “e” that precedes “e-discovery.”  It’s no longer enough to understand the law in isolation; today’s lawyer must understand some fundamentals of information technology and electronic evidence.  My efforts often prove quixotic, as everywhere I’m met with the attitude that electronic discovery isn’t a lawyer’s concern:  “It’s something you hire people to do,” they say.

Certainly, we must hire people to do things we cannot possibly do.  But I contend that we hire people to do many things we could learn to do ourselves, and do economically.  Remember Eddie Murphy’s royal backside wipers in Coming to America? All it takes is money to burn; and if it’s someone else’s money, who really cares?

But at what point do lawyers outsource themselves into superfluity?  Clients can hire vendors.  Bigger clients can and should bring much of the e-discovery process in-house.  Will lawyers remain captains of the e-discovery ship, or go the way of the local bookseller and video rental shop?  Are lawyers increasingly just middling, meddling middlemen in e-discovery; intermediaries serving mostly to inflate cost and adding little value? Continue reading →

It’s 3:00 am, and I’m laboring to pull together a slide deck for a speech in a few hours.  My hosts want me to cover all the essentials of e-discovery and then take questions. They’ve generously allotted thirty minutes.

So, I’m struggling to come up with a few hard, fast rules to share; rules so plain and true I can preface them “always” and “never.  So far, I’ve got:

ALWAYS…

1. Put a written legal hold in place
2. Make sure the legal hold is clear, personal and practical
3. Test searches against representative samples of data
4. Settle on forms of production before collection

NEVER…

1. Accept IT knows what to do until you’re certain of it
2. Rely exclusively on custodial hold and collection
3. Assume that what a vendor asks for is the price you’ll pay
4. Review until you deduplicate

As I ponder how I’ll fill out my list to ten items, my thoughts drift to another list of commandments from a long ago CLE program.  I’m reminded that any list of “always” and “never” must occasionally yield to those with the expertise and judgment to ignore them.

There are great lessons in life that stick with you.  If you’re very lucky, there are lots of them.  One of mine was listening to the late, great Irving Younger share his Ten Commandments of Cross Examination.  How I envy Judge Younger his singular delivery and gift for storytelling!  If I ran the world, no lawyer would be admitted to the courthouse without affirming he or she had listened to a recording of Younger’s Ten Commandments of Cross-X at least twice.

One of Younger’s commandments held that a lawyer should never permit a witness to repeat direct testimony on cross examination.  He tempered this point with a story about Max Steuer, a bygone trial lawyer with the unenviable task of defending the owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, whose sweatshop burned in 1911, killing 146 seamstresses trapped inside.  In its sadness and its role as a catalyst for change, the Triangle Shirtwaist fire was the 9-11 of its day.

A witness named Katy told a horrific tale of surviving the conflagration and carnage. All who heard the sad young woman were stunned and angered.  But, on cross examination, Steuer not only had Katy retell her story, he had her tell it again and again.

She did.  Again and again.  Always verbatim, never changing a word.

Steuer’s ear caught something others missed, and by breaking the rule against repeating damaging testimony, Max Steuer brilliantly demonstrated that Katy had been scripted and coached too well.  An offended jury returned an acquittal.

But unless your mastery of e-discovery rivals Max Steuer’s legendary courtroom prowess, the list of always and never items above are worth observing.

Now, how about contributing some of your own “always” and “never” items as comments below?   Thanks.

If experience has taught us anything about Requests for Production it’s that we can predict with near-certainty what the response will be:

1. The definitions will draw boilerplate objections;
2. The individual requests will draw boilerplate objections;
3. The forms of production designated will draw objection and be more-or-less summarily ignored.  The responding party will produce any form you designate, so long as it’s TIFF.
4. The responding party’s counsel will then assure the court that, save for privileged matter, you’ll get everything in exactly the same form as the responding party’s counsel.  “What could be more just or equitable than that, Your Honor?”

The responding party’s response is a given; but, your request can be better crafted to expose the obstructive character of the response and make it easier for the Court to compel production.

The gross shortcomings in e-discovery are commonly dismissed by the inarguable observation that “no production is perfect.”  Granted, but how far short of perfect is sufficient?  Is “lousy” close enough?

“Lousy” is what requesting parties have been conditioned to accept, and a key enabler of same is the overreaching, shotgun nature of most requesting parties’ definitions and requests for production. Continue reading →

I speak with a lot of judges about e-discovery and digital evidence.  I’ve taught at Federal Judicial Center programs from coast-to-coast and addressed confabs of judges in various states. Some of these presentations have turned into annual pilgrimages.  Have PowerPoint.  Will travel.

It’s a privilege to address judges because, among their own, judges are more cordial, relaxed and candid than in their courtrooms.  But, it’s also a responsibility and a challenge.  In the state systems, I can often be a judge’s first exposure to e-discovery.

Lawyers want the quick course in e-discovery.  They expect to glean ESI skills in minutes, before they glaze over with the talk of metadata and forms of production. Lawyers seek the canned checklist or scripted list of questions, and little care if they understand what the check boxes mean or what the follow up question should be.

It drives me bonkers.

Judges want the quicker course in e-discovery.  They’re not driven to win the case. They’re not worried about losing a client or looking bad to the partners. They know that discovery rulings are discretionary and rarely prompt findings of reversible error.  Federal District Judges get to keep their jobs for life. Apart from hereditary monarchs, who else has that sort of job security?

Judges have hardly any incentive to learn something new, save one: They really want to make the right decisions.

But despite such purity of purpose, there are many reasons why e-discovery can be more challenging for the bench than for practicing attorneys, viz.:

• Judges tend to be more senior, with the consequence that most had little hands-on experience with electronically stored information (ESI) in their own law practices;
• Most lawyers are at sea with the technology, so less adept at framing ESI issues, making a record and educating courts;
• The common practice to “split the baby” to achieve a just result rarely prompts good outcomes in e-discovery.

Recently, a judge asked me to pull together tips for jurists dealing with e-discovery; a list slated to be part of a presentation to a statewide judicial conference later this year. Responding to that request became the topic of my upcoming column in the October issue of Law Technology News, where I offer ten tips for judges who want to get e-discovery right.  Some are merely aspirational.  Some are pretty specific.  Here’s  a preview: Continue reading →