Author Archives: X1

Effective Information Governance Requires Effective Enterprise Technology

Information governance is the compilation of policies, processes, and controls enforced and executed with effective technology to manage electronically stored information throughout the enterprise. Leading IT industry research firm Gartner states that “the goal of information governance is to ensure compliance with laws and regulations, mitigate risks and protect the confidentiality of sensitive company and customer data.” A strong, proactive information governance strategy that strikes the balance between under-retention and over-retention of information can provide dramatic cost savings while significantly reducing risk.

However, while policies, procedures and documentation are important, information governance programs are ultimately hollow without consistent, operational execution and enforcement. CIOs and legal and compliance executives often aspire to implement information governance programs like defensible deletion, data migration, and data audits to detect risks and remediate non-compliance. However, without an actual and scalable technology platform to effectuate these goals, those aspirations remain just that. For instance, recent IDG research suggests that approximately 70% of information stored by companies is “dark data” that is in the form of unstructured, distributed data that can pose significant legal and operational risk and cost.

To date, organizations have employed limited technical approaches to try and execute on their information governance initiatives, enduring many struggles. For instance, software agent-based crawling methods are commonly attempted and can cause repeated high user computer resources utilization for each search initiated and network bandwidth limitations being pushed to the limits rendering the approach ineffective. So being able to search and audit across at least several hundred distributed end points in a repeatable and quick fashion is effectively impossible under this approach.

Another tactic attempted by some CIOs to attempt to address this daunting challenge is to periodically migrate disparate data from around the global enterprise into a central location. The execution of this strategy will still leave the end user’s computer needing to be scanned as there is never a moment when all users in the enterprise have just finished this process with no new data created. That means now that both the central repository and the end-points will need to be searched and increasing the complexity and management of the job. Boiling the ocean through data migration and centralization is extremely expensive, highly disruptive, and frankly unworkable as it never removes the need to conduct constant local computer searching, again through problematic crawling methods.

What has always been needed is gaining immediate visibility into unstructured distributed data across the enterprise, through the ability to search and report across several thousand endpoints and other unstructured data sources, and return results within minutes instead of days or weeks. None of the other approaches outlined above come close to meeting this requirement and in fact actually perpetuate information governance failures.

X1 Distributed Discovery (X1DD) represents a unique approach, by enabling enterprises to quickly and easily search across multiple distributed endpoints and data servers from a central location.  Legal and compliance teams can easily perform unified complex searches across both unstructured content and metadata, obtaining statistical insight into the data in minutes, instead of days or weeks. With X1DD, organizations can also automatically migrate, collect, or take other action on the data as a result of the search parameters.  Built on our award-winning and patented X1 Search technology, X1DD is the first product to offer true and massively scalable distributed searching that is executed in its entirety on the end-node computers for data audits across an organization. This game-changing capability vastly reduces costs while greatly mitigating risk and disruption to operations.

X1DD operates on-demand where your data currently resides — on desktops, laptops, servers, or even the Cloud — without disruption to business operations and without requiring extensive or complex hardware configurations. Beyond enterprise eDiscovery and information governance functionality, organizations offer employees at the same time, the award-winning X1 Search, improving productivity while effectuating that all too illusive actual compliance with information governance programs.

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, eDiscovery & Compliance, Information Governance, Information Management, Records Management, SharePoint, X1 Search 8

Federal Rules Advisory Committee Provides Key Guidance on Authenticating Social Media Evidence

Recently, the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence published an important treatise, “Best Practices for Authenticating Digital Evidence.” The Advisory Committee is an arm of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which drafts all proposed Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence, which the US Supreme Court and Congress ultimately ratify. Their advisory committee publications are given great weight by the courts in applying the Federal Rules of Evidence.  In fact, in the official minutes from its April 29, 2016 meeting, the Committee noted it considered whether to draft new specific Federal Rules of Evidence to govern authentication of electronic evidence, opting instead to draft the official best practices guide to serve as an accompaniment to the Federal Rules:

“The Committee concluded that amendments regulating authenticity of electronic evidence would end up being too detailed for the text of a rule; they could not account for how a court can and should balance all the factors relevant to authenticating electronic evidence in every case; and there was a risk that any factors listed would become outmoded by technological advances.

The Committee unanimously concluded, however, that publication of a best practices manual on authenticating electronic evidence would be of great use to the bench and bar. A best practices manual can be amended as necessary, avoiding the problem of having to amend rules to keep up with technological changes. It can include copious citations, which a rule or Committee Note could not.”

Federal District Court Judge Paul Grimm is the lead author on the best practices guide. Judge Grimm is widely seen as the one of the most influential judges concerning electronic discovery issues. He is known for several ground breaking decisions in the field including Lorraine v. Markel (2007), and Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe Inc. (2008), and The American Lawyer profiled him as one of the top 5 judges at the forefront of eDiscovery.

The best practices guide includes a very notable section dedicated to Internet website and social media evidentiary authentication, noting that “Parties have increasingly sought to use social media evidence to their advantage at trial.  A common example would be a picture or entry posted on a person’s Facebook page, that could be relevant to contradict that person’s testimony at trial.” However, “authenticity standards are not automatically satisfied by the fact that the post or the page is in that person’s name, or that the person is pictured on the post.” The guide notes that where affirmative direct testimony of the actual author is not available (which is often in the case of “smoking gun” type evidence), then circumstantial evidence is required for authentication.

As noted in the guide, absent uncontroverted and cooperative witness testimony, lawyers must turn to circumstantial evidence to help establish an evidentiary foundation for social media evidence. The guide provides many examples of circumstantial evidence that can be used to authenticate social media evidence. For instance metadata is particularly important as a “distinctive characteristic” under Rule 901(b)(4), as social media items contain a wealth of key metadata that represent or can establish “internal patterns or other distinctive characteristics” of the social media items in question.

In such situations, the testimony of the examiner who preserved the social media or other Internet evidence “in combination with circumstantial indicia of authenticity (such as the dates and web addresses), would support a finding” that the evidence presented is what the proponent asserts. See, Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc. (C.D.Cal.2002) 213 F.Supp.2d 1146, 1154. (See also, Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Company, 241 F.R.D. 534, 546 (D.Md. May 4, 2007) (citing Perfect 10, and also referencing MD5 hash values as an additional element of potential “circumstantial indicia” for authentication of electronic evidence).

One of the many benefits of X1 Social Discovery is its ability to preserve and display all the available “circumstantial indicia” or “additional confirming circumstances,” in order to present the best case possible for authenticating social media evidence collected with the software. This includes collecting all available metadata and generating a MD5 checksum or “hash value” of the preserved data for verification of the integrity of the evidence. It is important to collect and preserve social media posts and general web pages in a thorough manner with best-practices technology specifically designed for litigation purposes.  There are over twenty unique metadata fields associated with individual Facebook posts and messages. Any one of those entries, or any combination of them could provide unique circumstantial evidence that would establish foundational proof of authorship.

The bottom line is that, as reinforced by the Federal Rules Advisory Committee, collection and preservation of all the metadata and other critically important circumstantial evidence, which can be effectively obtained with tools like X1 Social Discovery, is absolutely essential to an effective social media discovery practice.

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Case Law, Uncategorized

New Sedona Commentary Provides Guidelines for Defensible eDiscovery Collection and Early Data Assessment

The Sedona Working Group on Electronic Document Retention & Production (WG1), recently published for public comment a Commentary on Defense of Process: Principles and Guidelines for Developing and Implementing a Sound E-Discovery Process (“The Commentary”). According to the authors, “the Commentary seeks to address what should be done to prepare for—or better yet, avoid—challenges to process, and how courts should address those disputes that arise.” Public comments are invited through November 15, 2016.

The Commentary provides excellent insight and guidance on many aspects of eDiscovery, with an extensive discussion on defensible ESI collection and culling that is particularly instructive for larger enterprises. This is important, as ESI is growing exponentially and even with the advent of predictive coding, the costs associated with ESI over-collection are often astronomical. The only way to reduce that pain to its minimum is to employ a smart but defensible process to control the volumes of data that enter the discovery pipeline. So the holy grail for large enterprises is a truly scalable capability that targets only potentially relevant ESI for collection. The Commentary provides general guidance on the reasonableness and defensibility of such a capability.

For instance, Principal 7 of the Commentary provides that “A reasonable e-discovery process may use search terms and other culling methods to remove ESI that is duplicative, cumulative, or not reasonably likely to contain information within the scope of discovery.” Comment 7.c notes in part that “search terms are a defensible technique for limiting the number of documents for review and production, provided that care is taken in their development and use.” Additionally, an iterative search process is recommended: “In an iterative process, information in documents returned by the first list of search terms can help attorneys to further refine existing terms or to identify new terms that should be added in subsequent rounds. This process can continue until a reasonable result is achieved.” It is also recommended that the search process be subject to validation and be properly documented.

Also instructive in The Commentary is a hypothetical “illustration” that reflects a smart and effective approach to an enterprise level ESI collection and preservation process:

“Illustration: The responding party has determined that the most efficient way of preserving discoverable emails is to collect the emails that “hit” on a broad set of search terms, rather than to modify the company’s default 30-day retention policy or rely on individual custodians to manually preserve potentially discoverable documents. Since a later determination that the responding party’s search terms were too narrow could come too late to prevent the loss of discoverable information, or cause a significant delay or expense from efforts to restore lost emails from back-up media, it may be prudent for the responding party to notify or seek agreement from the requesting party about the planned preservation approach and the specific search criteria to be applied.”

While the above-cited guidelines are very instructive for a well-designed, cost-effective and defensible process, such a goal is only attainable with the right enterprise technology. With X1 Distributed Discovery (X1DD), parties can perform targeted search and collection of the ESI of hundreds of endpoints over the internal network without disrupting operations. The search results are returned in minutes, not weeks, and thus can be highly granular and iterative, based upon multiple keywords, date ranges, file types, or other parameters. This approach typically reduces the eDiscovery collection and processing costs by at least one order of magnitude (90%), thereby bringing much needed feasibility to enterprise-wide eDiscovery collection that can save organizations millions while improving compliance.

And in line with concepts outlined in The Commentary, X1DD provides a repeatable, verifiable and documented process for the requisite defensibility. For a demonstration or briefing on X1 Distributed Discovery, please contact us.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

LTN: Social Media Evidence Even More Important than email and “Every Litigator” Needs to Address It

legaltech-news-thumbBrent Burney, a top eDiscovery tech writer of Legaltech News, recently penned a detailed product review of X1 Social Discovery after his extensive testing of the software. (Social Media: A Different Type of E-Discovery Collection, Legaltech News, September 2016). The verdict on X1 Social Discovery is glowing, but more on that in bit. Burney also provides very remarkable general commentary on how social media and other web-based evidence is essential for every litigation matter, noting that “email does not hold a flicker of a candle to what people post, state, admit and display in social media.” In emphasizing the critical importance of social media and other web-based evidence, Burney notes that addressing this evidentiary treasure trove is essential for all types and sizes of litigation matters.

Consistent to that point, there is a clear dramatic increase in legal and compliance cases involving social media evidence. Top global law firm Gibson Dunn recently reported that “the use of social media continues to proliferate in business and social contexts, and that its importance is increasing in litigation, the number of cases focusing on the discovery of social media continued to skyrocket.” Undoubtedly, this is  why Burney declares that “every litigator should include (X1 Social Discovery) in their technical tool belt,” and that X1 Social Discovery is “necessary for the smallest domestic issue all the way up to the largest civil litigation matter.” Burney bases his opinion on both the critical importance of social media evidence, and his verdict on the effectiveness of X1 Social Discovery, which he lauds as featuring an interface that “is impressive and logical” and providing “the ideal method” to address social media evidence for court purposes.

From a legal commentary standpoint, two relevant implications of the LTN article stand out. First, the article represents important peer review, publication and validation of X1 Social Discovery under the Daubert Standard, which includes those factors, among others, as a framework for judges to determine whether scientific or other technical evidence is admissible in federal court.

Secondly, this article reinforces the view of numerous legal experts and key Bar Association ethics opinions, asserting that a lawyer’s duty of competence requires addressing social media evidence. New Hampshire Bar Association’s oft cited ethics opinion states that lawyers “have a general duty to be aware of social media as a source of potentially useful information in litigation, to be competent to obtain that information directly or through an agent, and to know how to make effective use of that information in litigation.” The New York State Bar similarly weighed in noting that “A lawyer has a duty to understand the benefits and risks and ethical implications associated with social media, including its use as a … means to research and investigate matters.” And the America Bar Association recently published Comment [8] to Model Rule 1.1, which provides that a lawyer “should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.”

The broader point in Burney’s article is that X1 Social Discovery is enabling technology that provides the requisite feasibility for law firms, consultants, and other practitioners to transition from just talking about social media discovery to establishing it as a standard practice.  With the right software, social media collections for eDiscovery matters and law enforcement investigations can be performed in a very scalable, efficient and highly accurate process. Instead of requiring hours to manually review and collect a public Facebook account, X1 Social Discovery can collect all the data in minutes into an instantly searchable and reviewable format.

So as with any form of digital investigation, feasibility (as well as professional competence) often depends on utilizing the right technology for the job.  As law firms, law enforcement, eDiscovery service providers and private investigators all work social discovery investigations into standard operating procedures, it is critical that best practices technology is incorporated to get the job done. This important LTN review is an emphatic punctuation of this necessity.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Social Media Investigations

Defensible Custodian Self-Collection Now a Reality

eDiscovery collection and preservation efforts are often costly, time consuming and burdensome. Even worse, courts continue to routinely dish out punitive sanctions for ESI preservation failures. The volume of Electronically Stored Information is growing exponentially and will only continue to do so. Even with the advent of predictive coding, the costs associated with collecting, processing, reviewing, and producing documents in litigation are the source of considerable pain for litigants. The only way to reduce that pain to its minimum is to use all tools available in all appropriate circumstances within the bounds of reasonableness and proportionality to control the volumes of data that enter the discovery pipeline.

Counsel for large enterprises embroiled in litigation often gravitate to custodian self-collection, as it is a method to limit ESI preservation to only a limited set of documents and email deemed responsive by the individual custodians to the parameters of the litigation hold. However, traditional custodian self-collection is fraught with risk as it is usually not performed in a systemized or defensible manner.  Various custodians are not employing uniform search criteria and methodology across the same case.  Corporate counsel who rely on self-collection lack confidence in the accuracy and thoroughness of the process. Further, an average employee has neither the legal nor the technical expertise needed to identify and/or acquire potentially relevant ESI for purposes of litigation.

In a recent case that dramatically illustrates the perils of custodian self-collection, a company found themselves on the wrong end of a $3 million sanctions penalty for spoliation of evidence. The case illustrates that establishing a litigation hold and notifying the custodians is just the first step. Effective monitoring and compliance with the litigation hold is essential to avoid punitive sanctions. GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc., No. 12-1318-LPS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93299 (D. Del. July 12, 2016).

In GN Netcom, Plantronics promptly issued a litigation hold, conducted training sessions, and sent quarterly reminders to custodians requiring affirmative acknowledgment of compliance with the hold. Despite these efforts, a senior Plantronics executive deleted relevant emails and asked his subordinates to follow suit. The court ultimately found that Plantronics acted in bad faith, “intend[ing] to impair the ability of the other side to effectively litigate its case.” In addition to the $3 million monetary penalty, Plantronics also faces severe evidentiary sanctions at trial.

At the other end of the spectrum, full disk image collection is another preservation option that, while being defensible, is very costly, burdensome and disruptive to operations. Recently in this blog, I discussed at length the numerous challenges associated with full disk imaging.

Litigators and commentators often pine for the advent of a systemized, uniform and defensible process for custodian self-collection. Conceptually, such an ideal process would be where custodians are automatically presented with a set of their documents and emails that are identified as potentially relevant to a given matter though a set of keywords and other search parameters that are uniformly applied across all custodians. This set of ESI would be presented to the custodian in a controlled interface with no ability to delete documents or emails, and only the ability to review and apply tags. The custodian would have to comply with the order and all documents responsive to the initial unified search would be collected as a default control mechanism.

With X1 Distributed Discovery (X1DD), the option for a defensible custodian assisted review is now a reality. At a high level, with X1DD, organizations can perform targeted search and collection of the ESI of thousands of endpoints over the internal network without disrupting operations. The search results are returned in minutes, not weeks, and thus can be highly granular and iterative, based upon multiple keywords, date ranges, file types, or other parameters. This approach typically reduces the eDiscovery collection and processing costs by at least one order of magnitude (90%), thereby bringing much needed feasibility to enterprise-wide eDiscovery collection that can save organizations millions while improving compliance.

As a key optional feature, X1DD provides custodian assisted review, where custodians are presented with a listing of their potentially relevant ESI though a controlled, systemized and uniform identification process for their review and tagging. Instead of essentially asking the custodians to “please rummage through your entire email account and all your documents to look for what you might think is relevant to this matter,” the custodians are presented with a narrow and organized subset of potentially relevant ESI for their review. While the custodians are able to assist with the review, they cannot impact or control what ESI is identified and preserved; this is controlled and managed centrally by the eDiscovery practitioner. This way, custodians can apply their own insight to the information, flag personal private data, all while effectuating very cost-effective and systematic ESI collection.

The process is very defensible as the exercise is logged and documented, with all metadata kept intact and a concise chain of custody established. I could describe this very important feature a lot further, but candidly the best way to get a full picture is to see it for yourself. I recommend that you view this recorded 9 minute demonstration of X1 Distributed Discovery’s custodian self-review feature here.

user-assisted-review-video

We believe X1DD’s functionality provides the optimal means for enterprise eDiscovery preservation, collection and early data assessment, especially with the key additional (and optional) feature of custodian assisted review. But please see for yourself and let us know what you think!

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized