Tag Archives: eDiscovery

April 4, 2012 · 2:30 PM

Defining Truly Cloud-Capable eDiscovery Software

Last week we discussed the challenges of searching and collecting data in Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) cloud deployments (such as the Amazon cloud or Rackspace) for eDiscovery purposes.  Today we discuss what is needed for eDiscovery and enterprise search vendors to provide a truly cloud-capable solution and provide a decoder ring of sorts to cut through the hype.  For there is a lot of hype with the cloud becoming the latest eDiscovery hot button, with vendor marketing claims far surpassing actual capabilities.

In fact, many eDiscovery and enterprise software vendors claim to support the cloud, but are simply re-branding their long-existing SaaS offerings, which really has nothing to do with supporting IaaS. Barry Murphy of the eDiscovery Journal aptly identified this marketing practice as “cloud washing.” Data hosting, especially where the vendor’s manual labor is routinely required to upload and process data, does not meet defined cloud standards. Neither does a process that primarily exports data through APIs or other means out of its resident cloud environment to slowly migrate the cloud data to the vendor tools, instead of deploying the tools (and their processing power) to the data where it resides in the cloud. In order to truly support IaaS cloud deployments, eDiscovery and enterprise search software must meet the following three core requirements:

1.         Automated installation and virtualization:  The eDiscovery and search solution must immediately and rapidly install, execute and efficiently operate in a virtualized environment without rigid hardware requirements or on-site physical access. This is impossible if the solution is fused to hardware appliances or otherwise requires a complex on-site installation process. As hardware appliance solutions by definition are not cloud deployable and with enterprise search installations often requiring many months of man hours to install and configure, whether many of these vendors will be able to support robust IaaS cloud deployments in the reasonably foreseeable future is a significant question.

2.         On-demand self-service: In its definition of cloud computing, The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) identifies on- demand self-service as an essential characteristic of the cloud where a “consumer can unilaterally provision computing capabilities, such as server time and network storage, as needed automatically without requiring human interaction with each service provider.”

Many hosted eDiscovery services require shipping of data to the provider or extensive behind the scenes manual labor to load and configure the systems for data ingestion. Conversely, solutions that truly support cloud IaaS will spin up, ingest data and fully operate in an automated fashion without the need for manual on-premise labor for configuration or data import.

3.         Rapid elasticity: NIST describes this characteristic as capabilities that “scale rapidly outward and inward commensurate with demand. To the consumer, the capabilities available for provisioning often appear to be unlimited and can be appropriated in any quantity at any time.” This important benefit of cloud computing is accomplished by a parallelized software architecture designed to dynamically scale out over potentially several dozen virtualized servers to enable rapid ingestion, processing and analysis of data sets in that cloud environment. This capability would allow several terabytes of data to be indexed and processed within 2 to 4 hours on a highly automated basis at far less cost than non-cloud eDiscovery efforts.

However, many characteristics of leading eDiscovery solutions fundamentality prevent their ability to support this core cloud requirement. Most eDiscovery early case assessment solutions are developed and configured toward a monolithic processing schema designed to operate on a single expensive hardware apparatus. While recently spawning some bold marketing claims of high speeds and feeds, such architecture is very ill-suited to the cloud, which is powered by highly distributed processing across multitudes of servers. Additionally, many of the leading eDiscovery and enterprise search solutions are tightly integrated with third party databases and other OEM technology that cannot be easily decoupled (and also present possible licensing constraints) making such elasticity physically and even legally impossible.

So is there eDiscovery software that will truly support the IaaS cloud based upon these requirements, and address up to terabytes of data?  Stay tuned….

Leave a comment

Filed under Cloud Data, Enterprise eDiscovery, IaaS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 12, 2011 · 10:29 AM

Legal Experts: Attorneys Have an Affirmative Duty to Address Social Media Evidence

First, many thanks to all who participated in our legal ethics and social media evidence collection webinar. Special thanks also to the esteemed Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis for his participation. Ralph provided informative legal insight as always on this topic and there were many excellent questions and comments by participants. For those who did not attend, you can view and listen to the full recording here. (There is 1 hour MCLE ethics credit available for California attorneys who review the recording in its entirety).  

During the webinar, Ralph noted in the Q&A session that given the widespread importance of social media evidence to just about every type of litigation and investigation matter, it is incumbent on attorneys and their hired consultants to understand and address social media evidence as a standard practice. Losey cited the professional ethics and standards relating to the duty of competent representation. He is not the only prominent attorney or even court to proclaim this. In Griffin v. Maryland, which involved key social media evidence, the court opined that “it should now be a matter of professional competence for attorneys to take the time to investigate social networking sites.” (citing, Sharon Nelson et al., The Legal Implications of Social Networking, 22 REGENT U.L. REV. 1, 1-2 (2009/2010))

Additionally, in her excellent and comprehensive Delaware law review article, “Ethical Risks Arising From Lawyers’ Use of (and Refusal to Use) Social Media,” 12 DEL. L. REV. 179 (2011), attorney Margaret M. DiBianca asserts that the legal duties of competency and duty of diligent representation require that attorneys account for social media in the course of their discovery and investigation efforts. DiBianca pointedly notes that “[n]aysayers and late adopters alike may be equally surprised to learn that ignoring social media altogether may constitute a violation of their ethical obligations.”

And as we outlined a few weeks ago, the Plaintiff’s attorney in Lester v. Allied Concrete Company did not equate social media evidence with more traditional forms, causing him to blithely instruct his client to rid his Facebook page of damaging evidence, resulting in what many attorneys believe is the most severe eDiscovery court sanction imposed upon a lawyer. However, for every situation like the Lester case where relevant social media is brought to the forefront, there are presumably many others where important social media evidence is overlooked by attorneys and their service providers who do not include social media as part of their standard eDiscovery process checklist. As it is now established that social media is highly relevant as evidence, it is important that attorneys, paralegals, eDiscovery consultants and investigators proactively seek out such evidence and include its investigation in their standard processes and checklists. Many legal experts would say professional standards of care require it.

1 Comment

Filed under Legal Ethics & Social Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 6, 2011 · 11:25 AM

Producing Facebook and Twitter Evidence in Native Format

Per all recent case law on the subject, including for instance EEOC v. Simply Storage, social media evidence is considered Electronically Stored Information (ESI) on the same par as email and electronic files. This means that the various eDiscovery provisions of The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) apply to social media.  FRCP rule 34(b) requires that ESI be produced pursuant to a discovery request “in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form or forms that are reasonably usable” unless the requesting party specifies a different format at the time of the request. Parties seeking formal discovery and who invoke the Rule 34(b) specification at the time of the discovery request are typically instructing that the responsive ESI be produced in native format with all metadata intact.

Without the right technology, producing social media evidence in native format with all metadata intact can be a difficult task at best and may lead to spoliation liability as a worst case but not far-fetched scenario. Social media archive solutions typically have very limited export capabilities and do not generally support native file and metadata export directly into review platforms. For this reason, X1 Social Discovery was developed collect and preserve social media in its native format and to integrate with leading attorney review and production platform Concordance. In fact, this Thursday, December 8, LexisNexis will be featuring X1 Social Discovery as part of their CLE webinar outlining best practices process and technology for addressing social media evidence.  The webinar speakers will be expert E-Discovery attorney Shannon Capone Kirk of Ropes & Gray and Don Swanson of Five Star Legal and Compliance Systems, Inc. Shannon will discuss the state of the law and recommended processes and Don will demonstrate a seamless and integrated workflow between X1 Social Discovery and Concordance. You can register for the CLE webinar at this link here.

The LexisNexis webinar will highlight that social media evidence collected, preserved, searched, analyzed and tagged with X1 Social Discovery can be quickly and seamlessly exported into Concordance while maintaining native file format and all metadata. We recently heard from one customer who exported thousands of tagged social media items from X1 Social Discovery into Concordance in a manner of minutes. We believe this functionality regarding scalable native file social media export is one of the many X1 Social Discovery features that are unique to the eDiscovery field. But I invite you to attend the webinar to assess this claim yourself.

1 Comment

Filed under Best Practices, Social Media Metadata

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 28, 2011 · 8:21 AM

Can Lawyers Be Disqualified by Merely Viewing a Linkedin Profile? The Implications of Indirect Social Media Communications and Legal Ethics Rules

With attorneys and their hired consultants routinely collecting social media evidence for investigation and eDiscovery purposes, it is important to be aware that such activity can generate various direct and indirect communications to the subject account owners.  Sending a Facebook “friend” or a LinkedIn “connect” request are obvious examples, but there are also less overt means of social media communications. For instance, if a hypothetical law firm named Smith & Wesson were to merely follow a witness on Twitter, the service will automatically email the witness with a notification that Smith & Wesson is now following her. Additionally, it is all too easy when viewing a Facebook page to inadvertently “like” an item or accidentally send a friend request through a single mouse click.  And if you simply view another’s Linkedin profile while logged into your own account, that person will often be notified that you viewed his or her profile page.  Ethical Implication

For lawyers and their hired consultants and investigators, all this can be very problematic considering legal ethics rules that strictly regulate communications with represented parties and even jurors connected to a case. Several local and state bar associations have issued legal ethics opinions discussing this issue specific to collecting social media evidence. On December 6, X1 Discovery hosted a live webinar to delve deeper into this topic with the esteemed Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis as the featured speaker. Ralph is the lead eDiscovery partner at Jackson Lewis and the author of “The eDiscovery Team,” considered by many to be the best legal eDiscovery blog on the planet. You can register for the recorded version of this webinar at this link here. (One hour of ethics CLE credit will be available to California attorneys).

From our perspective, this critical concern involving indirect social media communications and legal ethics underscores the importance of employing best practices technology to search and collect social media evidence for investigative and eDiscovery purposes.  Collecting evidence in a manner that prevents, or at minimum, does not require that attorneys and their proxies directly or indirectly communicate with the subjects from whom they are collecting social media evidence is a core requirement for solutions that truly address investigative and eDiscovery requirements for social media. If user credentials to the social media account have been properly obtained, that is obviously ideal. However, in many instances lawyers must resort to searching and collecting publicly available information. In such situations, it is crucial that the law firm and/or its hired experts conduct such collections in the proper manner.

For instance, X1 Social Discovery software features public Facebook capture that can search and collect publicly available Facebook pages without directly or indirectly notifying the account holder. This is critical functionality for eDiscovery preservation. Additionally, X1 Social Discovery accesses and displays Facebook pages in read-only mode, preventing metadata alternation, inadvertent friend requests or “like” tagging through a simple slip of the mouse. X1 Social Discovery includes other features concerning Twitter and Linkedin that also prevent indirect communications while effectively collecting data from those sites. We will be highlighting those features in the next few weeks, but in the meantime, we hope you enjoy our webinar.

3 Comments

Filed under Best Practices, Legal Ethics & Social Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 15, 2011 · 9:10 PM

Facebook Spoliation Costs Lawyer $522,000; Ends His Legal Career

PenaltyIn what many are calling the largest eDiscovery sanction penalty ever leveled directly against an attorney, a Virginia state judge ordered lawyer Matthew Murray to pay $522,000 for instructing his client to remove photos from his Facebook profile, and for his client to pay an additional $180,000 for obeying the instructions. A copy of the final order in Lester v. Allied Concrete Company is available here.

If Murray had initiated a proper legal hold concerning his client’s social media evidence instead of directing blatant spoliation, he would be a lot wealthier and likely kept his job. Instead, he apparently quit his position as managing partner of the largest personal injury firm in Virginia and, according to local press reports, he no longer practices law.

The court’s findings reflect that Murray told his client to remove several photos from his Facebook account on fears that they would prejudice his wrongful death case brought after his spouse’s fatal automobile accident. One of the photos depicts the allegedly distraught widower holding a beer and wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with “I [heart] hot moms.” Murray instructed his client through his assistant to “clean up” his Facebook account. “We do not want blow ups of other pics at trial,” the assistant’s email to Lester said, “so please, please clean up your Facebook and MySpace!”

This case reflects a trend we see based on anecdotal data points where a minority of legal and eDiscovery practitioners have not quite placed social media evidence on the same par as other electronic evidence. For instance, I believe it is highly unlikely that Murray would have instructed his client to delete all his emails or wipe his hard drive, but for some reason he differentiated social media evidence.

The attorneys we speak with are telling us that social media evidence is relevant to nearly every case they handle and the savvy ones are using social media evidence to win their cases. And as we recently noted, since 2010 social media evidence played a key role in 675 different cases with published decisions reflecting such involvement and in presumably tens of thousands more cases not involving published decisions. Those numbers will only increase as social media networks grow even more popular.

However, I was struck by one recent conversation where an eDiscovery consultant had not yet included social media data source in their standard investigation checklist. To be fair, there has not been best practices technology available to enable scalable, mainstream social media eDiscovery until recently, which impacts standard processes.

But just as the Virginia state court judge saw no difference between Facebook postings and other “traditional” electronically stored information, neither should anyone in the legal and investigative fields, especially since the software needed to get the job done is now available.

UPDATE: Here is copy of the previous court ruling determining sanctions were in order. The final order set the amount.

13 Comments

Filed under Best Practices, Case Law

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,