“Practical Strategies for Procuring eDiscovery Services”

Program At A Glance

Thursday, November 6, 2008
Los Angeles Marriott Downtown
Boardroom Lounge

Learning Objectives:
1. To gain an understanding of every step of the eDiscovery procurement process.
2. To learn how to determine fair market value for eDiscovery services and process requirements.
3. To acquire the know how to leverage the procurement process to make better discovery decisions.

5:00 – 5:30 p.m		Meet and Greet; Registration; Light Refreshments
5:30 – 5:50 p.m		Opening Remarks.  Introduction to eDiscovery Services. Mr. Jacques Nack Ngue, CISA, President, eClaris, Inc.
5:50 – 6:30 p.m.		The Usage of eDiscovery Services in a Courtroom Setting. Mr. Stanley M. Gibson, Esq., Partner, Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro LLP
6:30 p.m.		Dinner is Served
6:50 – 7:30 p.m		The Value of Computer Forensics Before and During Discovery. Mr. Michael Tashman, VP, Business Development, OnlineSecurity
7:30 – 8:00 p.m		Questions and Answers; Farewells

Click Here To Register

eClaris, Inc.| 800 West 6th Street, Suite 1410 Los Angeles, CA 90017 | www.eclaris.com

eClaris Data Processing services uncovers the hidden details and relationships of the files in your data collection.

The processed files are inventoried and documented with custodian information. All text and metadata is extracted. Compound files are exploded, de-duplicated against the processed data shipment or the entire existing case data, and optionally filtered by search terms.

In addition to word processing formats, spreadsheets, presentations, graphics, and compressed formats like .zip, eClaris processes email formats including Outlook messages and folders (PST), Lotus Notes messages (NSF), and instant messenger archives.

eClaris conversion services allows the flexibility to produce responsive documents for either native file or image file export into Ipro, Opticon, Concordance, Introspect, Summation, PDF, or a delimited file.

MetaData and Content Extraction
eClaris extracts metadata and text information on more than 400 files formats. Our processes preserve the legal significance and context of data relationships between “parent” files and “child” attachments. The extracted metadata and text is stored for advanced searching and filtering.

Supported Loadfiles Formats
eClaris Data Processing platforms deliver to the following systems and data load files:

1. Concordance
2. Ringtail
3. JFS Litigator’s Notebook
4. Casemap
5. DocuMatris 1.5
6. Nmatrix
7. InData Trial Director
8. InMagic’s DB/TextWorks
9. Introspect eCM
10. IPRO IntelliVIEW
11. LaserFiche
12. Omnidox (Custom)
13. Sanction
14. Storm Viewer

Disclaimer: Due to the changing nature of the law, the forms contained on this blog may become outdated. In addition, if you have any question concerning the use of these forms, or your legal rights, it is strongly recommended that you obtain the services of an attorney since these forms may or may not be appropriate in your particular case. Please note that any desired outcome from your use of the forms cannot be predicted or guaranteed.


I. Request for Production of Documents and Things

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF [Jurisdiction]

Court File No.:

Plaintiff,
v. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
,
Defendant.

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") Plaintiffs, by counsel, request Defendants to produce the documents specified below, within thirty (30) days of service, to [counsel’s name and address], or at such other time and place, or in such other manner, as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties. Defendants’ production of documents shall be in accordance with the Instructions and Definitions set forth below and Fed.R.Civ.P. 34.

INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS

(a) Whenever reference is made to a person, it includes any and all of such person's principals, employees, agents, attorneys, consultants and other representatives.
(b) When production of any document in Plaintiffs' possession is requested, such request includes documents subject to the Plaintiffs' possession, custody or control. In the event that Defendant is able to provide only part of the document(s) called for in any particular Request for Production, provide all document(s) that Defendants are able to provide and state the reason, if any, for the inability to provide the remainder.
(c) "Document(s)" means all materials within the full scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34 including but not limited to: all writings and recordings, including the originals and all non-identical copies, whether different from the original by reason of any notation made on such copies or otherwise (including but without limitation to, email and attachments, correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, minutes, statistics, letters, telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statements, tags, labels, invoices, brochures, periodicals, telegrams, receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books, interoffice and intraoffice communications, offers, notations of any sort of conversations, working papers, applications, permits, file wrappers, indices, telephone calls, meetings or printouts, teletypes, telefax, invoices, worksheets, and all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes and amendments of any of the foregoing), graphic or aural representations of any kind (including without limitation, photographs, charts, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures, plans, drawings, surveys), and electronic, mechanical, magnetic, optical or electric records or representations of any kind (including without limitation, computer files and programs, tapes, cassettes, discs, recordings), including metadata.
(d) If any document is withheld from production under a claim of privilege or other exemption from discovery, state the title and nature of the document, and furnish a list signed by the attorney of record giving the following information with respect to each document withheld:
(i) the name and title of the author and/or sender and the name and title of the recipient;
(ii) the date of the document's origination;
(iii) the name of each person or persons (other than stenographic or clerical assistants) participating in the preparation of the document);
(iv) the name and position, if any, of each person to whom the contents of the documents have been communicated by copy, exhibition, reading or substantial summarization;
(v) a statement of the specific basis on which privilege is claimed and whether or not the subject matter or the contents of the document is limited to legal advice or information provided for the purpose of securing legal advice; and
(vi) the identity and position, if any, of the person or persons supplying the attorney signing the list with the information requested in subparagraphs above.
(e) "Relate(s) to," "related to" or "relating to" means to refer to, reflect, concern, pertain to or in any manner be connected with the matter discussed.
(f) Every Request for Production herein shall be deemed a continuing Request for Production, and Defendant is to supplement its answers promptly if and when Defendant obtains responsive documents which add to or are in any way inconsistent with Defendant's initial production.
(g) These discovery requests are not intended to be duplicative. All requests should be responded to fully and to the extent not covered by other requests. If there are documents that are responsive to more than one request, please note and produce each such document first in response to the request that is more specifically directed to the subject matter of the particular document.
(h) Any word written in the singular herein shall be construed as plural or vice versa when necessary to facilitate the response to any request.
(i) "And" as well as "or" shall be construed disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary in order to bring within the scope of the request all responses which otherwise might be construed to be outside its scope.

DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1. All documents with reference to or written policies, procedures and guidelines related to Defendant's computers, computer systems, electronic data and electronic media including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Backup tape rotation schedules;
b. Electronic data retention, preservation and destruction schedules;
c. Employee use policies of company computers, data, and other technology;
for the latest version
d. File naming conventions and standards;
e. Password, encryption and other security protocols;
f. Diskette, CD, DVD, and other removable media labeling standards;
g. Email storage conventions (i.e., limitations on mailbox sizes/storage locations, schedule and logs for storage, etc.);
h. Electronic media deployment, allocation and maintenance procedures for new employees, current employees or departed employees;
i. Software and hardware upgrades (including patches) for [relevant time period] (who and what organization conducted such upgrades); and
j. Personal or home computer usage for work-related activities.
2. Organization charts for all Information Technology or Information Services departments or divisions from [relevant time period].
3. Backup tapes containing email and other electronic data related to this action from [relevant time period].
4. Exact copies (i.e., bit-by-bit mirror image copies) of all hard drives on the desktop computers, laptop computers, notebook computers, personal digital assistant computers, servers, and other electronic media related to this action from [relevant time period].
5. Exact copies of all relevant disks, CDs, DVDs and other removable media related to this action from [relevant time period].
6. For each interrogatory set forth in Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories, produce all documents which Defendant referred to, relied upon, consulted or used in any way in answering such interrogatory.
7. All documents that contain or otherwise relate to the facts or information that Defendants contend refute, in any way, the allegations contained in the Complaint in this action.
8. All reports, including drafts, submitted by any expert witness or potential expert witness retained or consulted by any Defendant with respect to the issues raised in this case.

Date:

[LAW FIRM NAME]

________________________________________

[ATTORNEY NAME & ID]

[ADDRESS]

[PHONE]


II. FRCP 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF [Jurisdiction]

Court File No.:

Plaintiff,
v. NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION
PURSUANT TO FED.R CIV P. 30(b)(6)

Defendant.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that [Plaintiff/Defendant/Corporation] will take the deposition, before a qualified notary public by oral examination, of [Plaintiff/Defendant/Corporation] on [date/time], commencing at [location]. The deposition will continue until adjournment.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), [Plaintiff/Defendant] corporate designee(s) shall be prepared to testify regarding the following subjects, all with respect to [Plaintiff's/Defendant’s] information technology systems:

1) Number, types, and locations of computers currently in use and no longer in use;

2) Past and present operating system and application software, including dates of use;

3) Name and version of network operating system currently in use and no longer in use but relevant to the subject matter of the action;

4) File-naming and location-saving conventions;

5) Disk or tape labeling conventions;

6) Backup and archival disk or tape inventories or schedules;

7) Most likely locations of electronic records relevant to the subject matter of the action;

8) Backup rotation schedules and archiving procedures, including any backup programs in use at any relevant time;

9) Electronic records management policies and procedures;

10) Corporate policies regarding employee use of company computers and data;

11) Identities of all current and former personnel who have or had access to network administration, backup, archiving, or other system operations during any relevant time period.

[Date]: ___________________________________ [LAW FIRM NAME]

___________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME & ID]

[ADDRESS]

[PHONE]


III. Interrogatories

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF [Jurisdiction]

Court File No.:

Plaintiff,
v. INTERROGATORIES TO [Party Name]

Defendant.

I. Definitions. The definitions below will apply to the interrogatories requested in this document.

A. Application: An application is a collection of one or more related software programs that enable a user to enter, store, view, modify or extract information from files or databases. The term is commonly used in place of “program,” or “software.” Applications may include word processors, Internet browsing tools and spreadsheets.

B. Backup: To create a copy of data as a precaution against the loss or damage of the original data. Most users backup some of their files, and many computer networks utilize automatic backup software to make regular copies of some or all of the data on the network. Some backup systems use digital audio tape (DAT) as a storage medium. Backup Data is information that is not presently in use by an organization and is routinely stored separately upon portable media, to free up space and permit data recovery in the event of disaster.

C. Deleted Data: Deleted Data is data that, in the past, existed on the computer as live data and which has been deleted by the computer system or end-user activity. Deleted data remains on storage media in whole or in part until it is overwritten by ongoing usage or “wiped” with a software program specifically designed to remove deleted data. Even after the data itself has been wiped, directory entries, pointers, or other metadata relating to the deleted data may remain on the computer.

D. Document. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a) defines a document as “including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phonorecords, and other data compilations.” In the electronic discovery world, a document also refers to a collection of pages representing an electronic file. Emails, attachments, databases, word documents, spreadsheets, and graphic files are all examples of electronic documents.

E. Hard Drive: The primary storage unit on PCs, consisting of one or more magnetic media platters on which digital data can be written and erased magnetically.

F. Mirror Image: Used in computer forensic investigations and some electronic discovery investigations, a mirror image is a bit-by-bit copy of a computer hard drive that ensures the operating system is not altered during the forensic examination.

G. Network: A group of computers or devices that is connected together for the exchange of data and sharing of resources.

H. Operating system (OS): The software that the rest of the software depends on to make the computer functional. On most PCs this is Windows or the Macintosh OS. Unix and Linux are other operating systems often found in scientific and technical environments.

I. Spoliation: Spoliation is the destruction of records which may be relevant to ongoing or anticipated litigation, government investigations or audits. Courts differ in their interpretation of the level of intent required before sanctions may be warranted.

J. Software: Coded instructions (programs) that make a computer do useful work.

II. Documents and Data.

A. Individuals/organizations responsible. Identify and attach copies of all company organizational and policy information including:

1. Organizational charts;

2. A list of the names, titles, contact information, and job description/duties for all individuals (or organizations) responsible for maintaining electronic processing systems, networks, servers, and data security measures; and

3. A list of the names, titles, contact information, and job description/duties for all individuals employed in the following departments (or their equivalents) for [Plaintiffs/Defendants/Third Party]:

a) Information Technology;

b) Information Services;

c) Incident Response Teams;

d) Data Recovery Units; and

e) Computer Forensic or Audit/Investigation Teams.

B. Relevant Products/Services. Identify and attach copies of all documents related to (including marketing, selling, leasing, sharing or giving to another party) the computer system, programs, software, hardware, materials, tools or information that [Plaintiffs/Defendants/Third Party] uses or has used in relation to the sale or use of [Product/Service]. This includes all electronic data and necessary instructions for accessing such data relating to:

1. The pricing of [Product/Service] in the United States and internationally;

2. Customer invoices for [Product/Service], including the customer names/addresses, purchase volume, prices, discounts, transportation charges and production information;

3. Email sent or received by [Plaintiffs/Defendants/Third Party] to customers relating to [Product/Service];

4. Accounting records relating to [Product/Service], including work-in-progress reports, billing records, vendor invoices, time and material records, cost completion reports for each of [Plaintiffs/Defendants/Third Party] customers;

5. Construction and development information relating to web pages offering sale of [Product/Service] to the public;

6. Internal reports, sales reports, customer backlog reports, supplier backlog reports and operation reports related to [Product/Service];

7. Financial reporting information on a monthly and annual basis including profit and loss statements, branch costs, contribution margins and corporate overhead relating to [Product/Service];

8. Budgeting, projection and forecasting information relating to [Product/Service]; and

9. Sales booked, gross profit dollars and percentage for the sales booked, net sales shipped, and gross and net profit dollars and percentages for [Product/Service].

C. Networks. As to each computer network, identify the following:

1. Brand and version number of the network operating system currently or previously in use (include dates of all upgrades);

2. Quantity and configuration of all network servers and workstations;

3. Person(s) (past and present, including dates) responsible for the ongoing operations, maintenance, expansion, archiving and upkeep of the network; and

4. Brand name and version number of all applications and other software residing on each network in use, including but not limited to electronic mail and applications.

D. Hardware. Identify and describe each computer that has been, or is currently, in use by [Plaintiffs/Defendants/Third Party] (including desktop computers, PDAs, portable, laptop and notebook computers, cell phones, etc.), including but not limited to the following:

1. Computer type, brand and model number;

2. Computers that have been re-formatted, had the operating system reinstalled or been overwritten and identify the date of each event;

3. The current location of each computer identified in your response to this interrogatory;

4. The brand and version of all software, including operating system, private and custom-developed applications, commercial applications and shareware for each computer identified;

5. The communications and connectivity for each computer, including but not limited to terminal-to-mainframe emulation, data download and/or upload capability to mainframe, and computer-to-computer connections via network, modem and/or direct connection; and

6. All computers that have been used to store, receive or generate data related to the subject matter of this litigation.

E. Software. Identify and describe all software programs that have been, or are currently, in use by [Plaintiffs/Defendants/Third Party] including, but not limited to, the following:

1. Titles;

2. Version Names and Numbers;

3. Manufacturers;

4. Authors and contact information; and

5. Operating systems that the programs were installed on.

F. Operating Systems. Identify and describe all operating systems that have been, or are currently, in use by [Plaintiffs/Defendants/Third Party] including, but not limited to, operating systems installed during [time period] for the following individuals:

1. [Name & Job Title]

G. Email. Identify all email systems in use, including but not limited to the following:

1. All email software and versions presently and previously used by you and the dates of use;

2. All hardware that has been used or is currently in use as a server for the email system including its name;

3. The specific type of hardware that was used as terminals into the email system (including home PCs, laptops, desktops, cell phones, personal digital assistants, etc.) and its current location;

4. The number of users there has been on each email system (delineate between past and current users);

5. Whether the email is encrypted in any way and list passwords for all users;

6. All users known to you who have generated email related to the subject matter of this litigation; and

7. All email known to you (including creation date, recipient(s) and sender(s)) that relate to, reference or are relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.

H. Internet Use. Identify any Internet policies and procedures in use, including but not limited to the following:

1. Any Internet Service Providers (ISP) that [Plaintiffs/Defendants/Third Party] has provided its employees and the method used to access the Internet;

2. The names and titles for all individuals who had Internet access;

3. Any Internet hardware or software documentation that is used to provide Internet access to the above individuals during [time period];

4. Internet use/access manuals, policies and procedures, including limitations on Internet access and use; and

5. All Internet-related data on the electronic processing systems used by [Plaintiffs/Defendants/Third Party] including, but not limited to, saved Web pages, lists of Web sites, URL addresses, Web browser software and settings, bookmarks, favorites, history lists, caches, and cookies.

I. Other Electronic Data. Identify any other electronic data in use, including but not limited to the following:

1. Activity log files contained on [Plaintiffs/Defendants/Third Party] network and any equipment needed to access the log files;

2. Manual and automatic records of hardware and equipment use and maintenance;

3. The names of Internet newsgroups or chat croups that [Plaintiffs/Defendants/Third Party] subscribes to; include the name and title of the individuals subscribing to each group as well as any information necessary to access the groups, including passwords; and

4. Any portable devices that are not connected to [Plaintiffs/Defendants/Third Party] network and that are not backed up or archived.

J. Data Transmission. Describe in detail all inter-connectivity between the computer system at [opposing party] in [office location] and the computer system at [opposing party # 2] in [office location # 2] including a description of the following:

1. All possible ways in which electronic data is shared between locations;

2. The method of transmission;

3. The type(s) of data transferred;

4. The names and contact information of all individuals possessing the capability for such transfer, including list and names of authorized outside users of [opposing party’s] electronic mail system; and

5. The name and contact information of the individual responsible for supervising inter-connectivity.

K. Data security measures. List all user identification numbers and passwords necessary for accessing the electronic processing systems or software applications requested in this document. During the course of this litigation, you must supplement all security measures with updated information, if applicable. Include:

1. Computer security policies;

2. The name(s) and contact information of the individual(s) responsible for supervising security; and

3. Information about each applications security settings, noting specifically who has administrative rights.

L. Supporting information. All codebooks, keys, data dictionaries, diagrams, handbooks, manuals or other documents used to interpret or read the information on any of the electronic media listed above.

III. Backup Protocols.

A. Current Procedures. As to data backups performed on all computer systems currently or previously in use, identify and describe the following:

1. All procedures and devices used to back up the software and the data including, but not limited to, name(s) of backup software used, the frequency of the backup process, and type of tape backup drives, including name and version number, type of media (i.e. DLT, 4mm, 8mm, AIT). State the capacity (bytes) and total amount of information (gigabytes) stored on each tape;

2. The tape or backup rotation, explain how backup data is maintained, and state whether the backups are full or incremental (attach a copy of all rotation schedules);

3. Whether backup storage media is kept off-site or on-site. Include the location of such backup and a description of the process for archiving and retrieving on-site media;

4. The name(s) and contact information for the individual(s) who conduct(s) the backup and the individual who supervises this process;

5. A detailed list of all backup sets, regardless of the magnetic media on which they reside, showing current location, custodian, date of backup, a description of backup content and a full inventory of all archives,

6. All extra-routine backups applicable for any servers identified in response to these Interrogatories, such as quarterly archival backup, yearly backup, etc., and identify the current location of any such backups, and

7. Any users who had backup systems in their PCs and describe the nature of the backup.

B. Backup Tapes. Identify and describe all backup tapes in your possession including:

1. Types and number of tapes in your possession (such as DLT, AIT, Mammoth, 4mm, 8mm);

2. Capacity (bytes) and total amount of information (gigabytes) stored on each tape; and

3. All tapes that have been re-initialized or overwritten since commencement of this litigation and state the date of said occurrence.

IV. Spoliation of Electronic Evidence.

A. Document Retention and Destruction Policies. Identify and attach any and all versions of document/data retention or destruction policies used by [opposing party] and identify documents or classes of documents that were subject to scheduled destruction.

1. Attach copies of document destruction inventories/logs/schedules containing documents relevant to this action.

2. Attach a copy of any disaster recovery plan.

3. Also state:

a) The date the policy was implemented;

b) The date, if any, of the suspension of this policy in toto or any aspect of said policy in response to this litigation;

c) A description by topic, creation date, user or bytes of any and all data that has been deleted or in any way destroyed after the commencement of this litigation. State whether the deletion or destruction of any data pursuant to said data retention policy occurred through automation or by user action; and

d) Whether any company-wide instruction regarding the suspension of the data retention/destruction policy occurred after or related to the commencement of this litigation. If so, identify the individual responsible for enforcing the suspension.

B. Document Destruction. Identify any data that has been deleted, physically destroyed, discarded, damaged (physically or logically), or overwritten, whether pursuant to a document retention or destruction policy or otherwise, since the commencement of this litigation. Specifically identify those documents that relate to or reference the subject matter of the above referenced litigation.

C. Organizations or Individuals Responsible for Maintaining the Document Retention and Destruction Policies. List the job title, description, business address, telephone number, and email address of any individuals or organizations that are/were responsible for creating, implementing or retaining any and all versions of your document retention or destruction policies.

D. Meetings or Documents Discussing Document/Data Destruction. Identify with specificity any meetings or conversations referencing document spoliation in relation to this action.

1. Identify and attach any and all related meeting minutes/notes from [time period here].

2. List the job title, description, business address, telephone number, and email address of any individuals or organizations that are/were responsible for retaining the meeting minutes/notes.

E. Data Wiping. For any server, workstation, laptop, or home operating system that has been “wiped clean”, defragmented, or reformatted such that you claim that the information on the hard drive is permanently destroyed, identify the following:

1. The date on which each drive was wiped, reformatted, or defragmented;

2. The method or program used (i.e., WipeDisk, WipeFile, BurnIt, Data Eraser, etc.).

F. Data Recycling. Identify the person(s) responsible for maintaining any schedule of redeployment or circulation of existing equipment and describe the system or process for redeployment.

Rule 16(b)

This rule requires the scheduling order to address and disclose all discovery of electronically stored information (ESI).

Rule 26(b)

This rule obligates both parties to have a “Meet and Confer” conference to discuss all eDiscovery issues prior to commenc¬ing discovery.

Rule 26(b)(2)(B)

This rule requires the responding party to produce all accessible, relevant, non-privileged and responsive ESI. The responding party may potentially avoid production of inaccessible ESI unless production is mandated by the court.

Rule 26(b)(5)

This rule creates a process for asserting claims of privilege and work product protection following an inadvertent production of ESI. The mechanisms used are the Claw Back, Open Peek and Quick Peek arguments.

Rule 34 (b)

This rule institutes a procedure for both parties to identify the format of ESI to be processed by providing a default ESI production form in the event it is not agreed upon during the 26(b) conference. The default form revolves around ESI that “in which it is ordinarily maintained [or] reasonably usable.”

Rule 37(f)

This rule creates a “Safe Harbor” by providing that absent extraordinary circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions on either party for not providing ESI lost due to a routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.

When comparing the recently amended FRCP with California’s proposed electronically stored evidence (“ESI”) amendment two differences come to mind.

The first distinction has to do with defining what constitutes ESI. The FRCP avoids providing a precise definition of what constitutes electronically stored information. Rather, the FRCP focuses on information "stored in any medium" that can be "retrieved and examined." As a result, the Federal rules avoid any specific definition that later could be outdated as technology advances. On the other hand, the proposed California amendments take a different approach. They actually do refer to electronically stored information as having "electrical, digital, magnetic, wireless, optical, electromagnetic, or similar capabilities."

The second distinction relates to what amount of ESI may be obtained. Under the new FRCP a party can only obtain discovery of ESI that is "reasonably accessible." While there is no clear definition of reasonable legislative history/committee notes suggest that it includes any information that is routinely accessed and not data that has been destroyed, deleted, is legacy or data that would require significant cost, effort or burden to produce. As the exception a party can access ESI that is not "reasonably accessible" if there is good cause. Good cause tests typically weigh need versus burden. On the other hand, the proposed California ESI amendments are geared towards having everything discoverable, whether readily accessible or not. Instead of statutorily restricting what can be sought California seeks the usage of court protective orders and motions to keep the playing field in check.

Picture this. You are busy preparing for your weekly conference call with one of your vendors when you hear a knock on your office door that interrupts your train of thought. The door opens, a server hands you a subpoena and -- to your bewilderment -- your business has just been sued. After collecting your thoughts, take control by managing the costs of going to court and the impact it may have on your business by directing your lawyer to conduct an Early Case Assessment (“ECA”). This post will (a) define and elucidate the mechanics of an ECA and illuminate the benefits of having an ECA.

ECA: What is it and how does it work?

Directing your lawyer to create an ECA could be the most powerful tool you have in saving time and money when getting a handle on your case. A well thought out ECA should predict the factual and legal issues relating to your case, any litigation costs and the required time needed to defend your case. Armed with this information, you can then decide whether you want to go forward with your case, seek mediation or look into settlement options.

To get things started visit your attorney and describe how the lawsuit occurred. This meeting should occur as soon as possible to ascertain early on, and not days before trial, if your case has a problem. After this initial consultation provide your attorney with copies of all correspondence, contracts and documents pertaining to the dispute. Do not forget to include emails as well. This information will allow your lawyer to create an ECA that will usually include a preliminary legal analysis of your case and any applicable legal defenses.

After your attorney has determined your cases’ legal angle assess what the your economic costs will be by asking your lawyer how much it will cost to defend your case. Be sure to inquire about court legal fees and any additional fees associated with your case. Examples of additional fees may include court reporters, copying charges, travel expenses and any expert fees. In addition ask if you can recover these expenses if you win and if you would need to pay them if you lose the case.

Finally, discuss with your attorney how much time will be required by their firm to defend the case. Specifically, focus your questions on discovery since this phase usually proves to be the most costly. Identify individuals to be deposed, ask for an estimate of the time required for their preparation and deposition, and factor in any travel time. Finally, inquire about anticipated document productions and whether any site inspections
may occur during your case.

The Benefits of Having an ECA

At this point, if you are still on the fence as to whether you need an ECA please consider the following benefits associated with having a properly executed ECA. First, as mentioned above, you will be able to obtain a preliminary legal analysis of your case, a monetary cost estimate of expenses to come and a prediction of the time that needs to be devoted to your case. In addition, your dispute will be put in a more objective light because your attorney, a person other than the parties to your case, will review the facts, circumstances and applicable law. Too often people become blinded by their own involvement in a matter---have your attorney draft an ECA for you to counter this bias. Lastly, and arguable most importantly, the chief benefit of an ECA will be the peace of mind it offers by recommending a particular course of action for your case. This will allow you to make an informed and educated decision when deciding if you would like to litigate, settle or seek mediation.

As the state of the national economy continues to decline many have pointed to the subprime loan crisis of 2007 as one of the major causes. Subprime loans are usually defined as loans that have higher interest rates that are presented to buyers who cannot qualify for more traditional loans with lower interest rates. Subprime loans however carry great risk. This is primarily because subprime loans entice the buyer to purchase by promoting property mortgages that initially have lower rates that will invariably, after a few years, spike tremendously. Buyers were also typically lured by the prospect of zero money down loans in order to purchase property that was previously unaffordable to them. The results have been disastrous for the overall economy and epic in size. Experts predict losses connected to subprime loans to exceed 100 billion dollars. Banking behemoth Citigroup alone has reported a whopping 9.83 billion dollar loss for the last quarter of 2007.

Given the negative effect on the real estate market it is likely that subprime loans will spawn much litigation as buyers will undoubtedly seek to relocate their losses to others. As a result companies will need to prepare for the inevitability of trial and the complexities of eDiscovery as it relates to the subprime real estate market. eDiscovery will become paramount since many cases will undoubtedly be decided on the basis of evidence generated during discovery.

Determine The Risk

Financial institutions seeking to implement best practices for conducting eDiscovery, when applied to subprime loan matters, should begin by evaluating their overall risk to the possibility of future litigation. When assessing this risk it is of supreme importance to work effectively in conjunction with all company departments: compliance, technology and legal. The synergy of intra-company collaboration is a prerequisite for quickly assessing potential company exposure to subprime litigation.

Maximize eDiscovery

If the evaluation contains the possibility of litigation then companies should wisely utilize eDiscovery to help prepare for the upcoming trial. An effective eDiscovery plan will let financial services companies facing subprime litigation locate and review all relevant electronically stored evidence. eDiscovery lets companies understand the composition of their data and will enable them to better set up their case. Common modes of critical subprime litigation data to be dealt with during eDiscovery include: databases, calendar files, spreadsheets, emails, websites, plain text files and audio files.

Once a company’s data is thoroughly assessed and understood key discovery inquiries to be asked to the opposing party need to be developed via eDiscovery. Either party to a subprime litigation matter will need to address if and when they became aware of the risks associated with subprime loans. The type of knowledge, if any, that was had as to the subprime loans will become important as well. If the party was the seller whether or not the risks of subprime loans were accurately represented to the buyer will reign supreme. Both parties will also need to delineate any due diligence that transpired as well as their general expectations when entering into the subprime deal. All of these queries will become possible only if eDiscovery is properly utilized to locate and analyze the large volumes of relevant and/or incriminating subprime electronic evidence that may exist in each party’s respective data repositories.

Proving Your Case

The data obtained via eDiscovery and the answers to the discovery questions noted above will give counsel for each party during the subprime litigation the tools necessary to prove any criminal, false/misleading and/or fraudulent activity that may have occurred. Financial services companies defending themselves will need to show that they did not hide data or engage in bad faith. These companies will need to clearly demonstrate what they knew about subprime loans and how it was communicated to the buyer in order to stave off a negative verdict.

Clearly, as noted above, the calamity created by subprime loans has already spun out of control and affected the greater national economy at large. As a result there will be, and already has been, a great deal of litigation. eDiscovery will become a crucial necessity for each party since it will impact the results of many cases due to the evidence eDiscovery will be able to locate and review. To properly weather this storm financial services companies and buyers alike should be prepared to internally collaborate to assess risk, utilize eDiscovery to collect pertinent evidence, prepare the central queries to be asked during trial and then prove their case. Only then will both party’s personal subprime crisis subside and safeguards will be able to be devised and implemented to prevent future litigation.

 1. When litigation or an investigation is reasonably anticipated

2. When a Summons and Complaint are properly received

3. When representatives know that a lawsuit is a possibility

4. When counsel anticipates a lawsuit or investigation

5. When established facts suggest that litigation is likely

6. When one receives a written claim that expressly and credibly threatens a lawsuit

7. When a plaintiff chooses to file a lawsuit

8. When a business is first on notice

Below is a quick way to determine the size of your data:

Every Megabite is around 75 pages
Every Gigabite is around 75,000 pages
Every CD is around 50,000 pages
Every DVD is around 350,000 pages
Every DLT Tape is around 5,000,000 pages
Every Super DLT Tape is around 7,000,000 pages

Most Emails are 1.5 pages
Most Word Document are 8 pages
Most Excel Spreadsheets are 50 pages
Most PowerPoints are 14 pages


The average 100 MB .PST file is 900 emails and 300 attachments
The average 400 MB .PST file is 3,500 emails and 1,200 attachments
The average 600 MB .PST file is 5,500 emails and 1,600 attachments
The average 1.00 GB .NSF file is 9,000 emails and 3,000 attachments
The average 1.5 GB .NSF file is 13,500 emails and 4,500 attachments

In a recent 2007 Colorado case entitled Garcia v. Berkshire Life Ins Co of America a plaintiff's attorney claimed to lack the technological savvy required to view many of his client's emails. The attorney assumed that he would not need to produce those emails because he was unable to read them. As a result, the attorney only produced the ten emails he could view and ignored the remaining thousands of emails.

The attorney essentially argued that since the outstanding emails were not "reasonably accessible" they did not have to be produced. According to the attorney he "encountered software issues...and had no way of knowing the content." In addition the attorney noted that he "does not employ a full time computer technician and occasionally technology issues arise that exceed his computer expertise

Judge Boland rejected the attorney's reasoning and ruled that he could have hired someone with the required technological expertise to view the emails for him. In particular the judge remarked that the attorney "was obligated to seek competent professional assistance to ascertain the truth about the [remaining] contents."

Judge Boland's message is clear...

When it comes to eDiscovery ignorance is never bliss.