6.
50%
Firms
believe
they
will
increase
technology
spending
and
bring
in
addi4onal
EDD
investments
in
the
next
three
months.
Cowen
Group’s
2Q
“cri5cal
trends”
poll
8. eDiscovery
cases
on
the
rise
187
103
2010
Source: Gibson Dunn 2011 Mid-Year eDiscovery Update, July 22, 2011
2011
9. Sanc4on
filings
on
the
rise
68
31
2010
2011
Over
50%
increase
in
1
year!
Source: Gibson Dunn 2011 Mid-Year eDiscovery Update, July 22, 2011
10. Sanc4on
awards
on
the
rise
38
21
2010
Source:
Gibson
Dunn
2011
Mid-‐Year
eDiscovery
Update,
July
22,
2011
2011
11. “
Plain5ff’s
aJorney
simply
did
not
understand
the
technical
depths
to
which
electronic
discovery
can
some5mes
go.
Chief
Judge
Arthur
J.
Gonzalez
GFI
Acquisi5on,
LLC
v.
Am.
Federated
Title
Corp.
(In
re
A&M
Fla.
Props.
II,
LLC),
2010
Bankr.
LEXIS
1217
(Bankr.
S.D.N.Y.
Apr.
7,
2010)
”
12. “
Plain5ff
has
evidenced
a
paZern
of
inexcusable
disregard
for
the
authority
of
this
Court
…
and
the
larger
civil
discovery
process
and
warrants
imposi5on
of
substan5al
ameliora5ve
and
puni5ve
sanc5ons.
”
Judge
Mary
S.
Scriven
Bray
&
Gillespie
Mgmt.,
LLC
v.
Lexington
Ins.
Co.,
2010
U.S.
Dist.
LEXIS
400
(M.D.
Fla.
Jan.
5,
2010)
13. “
How
many
5mes
can
a
li5gant
ignore
his
discovery
obliga5ons
before
his
misconduct
catches
up
with
him
…
[Plain5ff]
failed
to
comply
with
…
three
court
orders
compelling
produc5on
of
materials
within
the
party’s
control.
”
Judge
Neil
Gorsuch
Lee
v.
Max
Interna5onal,
LLC,
2:09-‐CV-‐0175-‐DB,
US
Court
of
Appeals,
10th
Circuit
(May
3,
2011)
14. “
The
defendant’s
“acts
of
spolia4on
be
treated
as
contempt
of
this
court,
and
that
as
a
sanc4on
...
he
be
imprisoned
”
for
a
period
not
to
exceed
two
years.
Judge
Paul
Grimm
Victor
Stanley,
Inc.
v.
Crea5ve
Pipe,
Inc.,
2010
U.S.
Dist.
LEXIS
93644
(D.
Md.
Sept.
9,
2010)
15. To
prove
spolia4on
that
warrants
sanc4ons
a
party
must
show:
1) The
party
having
control
over
the
evidence
must
have
had
an
obliga5on
to
preserve
when
it
was
destroyed;
2) The
destruc5on
or
loss
was
accompanied
by
a
culpable
state
of
mind;
and
3) The
evidence
destroyed
or
altered
must
have
been
relevant
to
the
spolia5on
claims
of
that
party
that
sought
the
discovery
of
the
spoliated
evidence.
Victor
Stanley,
Inc.
v.
Crea5ve
Pipe,
Inc.,
2010
U.S.
Dist.
LEXIS
93644
(D.
Md.
Sept.
9,
2010)
17. “
The
defendant
willfully
violated
…
[had]
blatant
disregard
for
the
Court's
Discovery
Order
…
[and
showed
a]
lack
of
apprecia4on
of
the
discovery
process
in
general.
”
Judge
T.
John
Ward
Green
v.
Blitz
U.S.A.,
Inc.,
2011
U.S.
Dist.
LEXIS
20353
(E.D.
Tex.
Mar.
1,
2011)
18. The
defendant
had
to
provide
a
copy
of
this
Order
to
every
Plain5ff
in
every
case
it
had
against
it
going
back
two
years
or
pay
$500k
as
a
fine
if
it
did
not
within
30
days.
For
the
next
5
years,
it
has
to
aJach
a
copy
of
this
Order
with
its
first
pleading
or
filing
on
every
new
lawsuit,
no
maJer
in
what
capacity
they
are
involved.
19.
20. Lawyers,
Clients
&
Judges
“have
an
interest
in
establishing
a
culture
of
coopera4on
in
the
discovery
process.
Over-‐conten5ous
discovery
is
a
cost
that
has
outstripped
any
advantage
in
the
face
of
ESI
and
the
data
deluge…
21. “…It
is
not
in
anyone’s
interest
to
waste
resources
on
unnecessary
disputes,
and
the
legal
system
is
strained
by
‘gamesmanship’
or
‘hiding
the
ball,’
to
no
prac5cal
effect
…
[and]
it
is
an
exercise
in
economy
and
logic.”
22. “
The
essence
of
the
propor5onality
principle
is
that
the
legal
system
ought
not
to
make
e-‐discovery
so
burdensome
that
people
with
meritorious
claims
are
deprived
of
their
ability
to
win.
”
Richard
A.
(Doc)
Schneider
E-‐discovery
Prac5ce
Group
King
&
Spalding
Source:
The
Metropolitan
Corporate
Counsel,
April
2010
23. “
Ul4mately,
our
challenge
is
to
achieve
a
propor4onal
result,
so
that
we
don't
spend
$500,000
on
electronic
discovery
in
a
case
that's
worth
$1
million.
”
Browning
Marean
III
Senior
Counsel
at
DLA
Piper
24. 94%
The
total
cost
that
processing
and
review
stages
make
up
in
any
given
maZer.
The
In
House
Counsel
Guide
to
Partnering
for
E-‐Discovery,
2012
25. Processing
has
significant
poten4al
for
overall
cost
savings
–
up
to
71%!
The In House Counsel Guide to Partnering for E-Discovery, 2012
26. 67%
Cost
savings
projected
by
bringing
processing
in-‐house
rather
than
with
a
vendor.
The
In
House
Counsel
Guide
to
Partnering
for
E-‐Discovery,
2012
27. “
WhiJling
down
the
ini5al
dataset
—that’s
where
the
cost
savings
really
come
into
play.
That’s
where
E-‐discovery
tools
start
paying
off.
”
Electronic
Discovery
Manager
Fortune
500
Technology
Company
The Corporate Executive Board Company.
28. “
The
idea
is
to
take
the
100
gigabytes
of
data
you
just
collected
…
process
and
review
only
what
is
poten5ally
relevant.
You
can
wind
up
saving
hundreds
of
”
thousands
of
dollars
in
a
case.
Kelly
F.
Farmer
Manager
of
Data
Governance
and
Discovery
Services
51. “
But
today's
unmanaged
mobility
…
and
equally
unmanaged
use
of
popular
Web
services
such
as
Dropbox
and
Evernote
represent
a
seemingly
unstoppable
phenomenon.
This
creates
a
set
of
issues
that
must
be
addressed
before
an
informa5on
governance
firestorm
hits.
”
Managing
Mobile
Risk
for
Lawyers,
Law
Technology
News,
October
18,
2012
54. Why
use
it
for
your
firm?
Increase
your
firm's
capacity
Decrease
data
management
costs
Reduce
your
risk
Increased
produc4vity
55. What
do
you
look
for?
Managed
Solu4ons
On-‐Demand
Storage
Online
Review
Dedicated
Field
Engineers
Disaster
Recovery
World-‐Class
Data
Centers
Personalized
Customer
Service
56. Ethical
Considera4ons
Professional
Ethics
CommiZee
of
the
Florida
Bar
Op.
10-‐2
(2011)
Pennsylvania
Bar
Associa4on
Ethics
Opinion
No.
2010-‐060
(2010)
North
Carolina
Bar
2011
Formal
Ethics
Opinion
6
(2011)
Iowa
CommiZee
on
Prac4ce
Ethics
and
Guidelines
Ethics
Opinion
11-‐01
(2011)
New
York
State
Bar
Associa4on’s
CommiZee
on
Professional
Ethics
Op.
842
(2010)
57. “…a
law
firm
may
contract
with
a
vendor
of
sorware
as
a
service
provided
the
lawyer
uses
reasonable
care
to
safeguard
confiden4al
client
informa4on.”
58. “
As
the
technology
and
products
improve,
cloud-‐compu5ng
plaxorms
will
become
a
more
palatable
alterna5ve
for
large
and
small
firms
alike.
”
60. 4-‐fold
solu4on
to
handling
eDiscovery
1. Lawyers,
technology,
firm
management
=
eDiscovery
Team
2.
Educa4on
and
training
3.
Coopera4on
and
transparency
4.
Metrics
and
new
technology
Ralph
Losey
Partner
&
e-‐Discovery
Team
Lead
Jackson
Lewis
