e-Discovery conjures up visions of millions of documents and cases that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Although these are the cases that make the headlines, the average litigation typically involves less than 10,000 records, or about one gigabyte of electronic data.
When law clerks describe “a small document” collection, the usual approach is to either print everything out for review, convert everything to tiff images, or review the native files without any special, e-discovery tools. As anyone who reads this blog (and countless others on the net) knows, these are the least efficient, and most costly methods, regardless of the collection size.
While it will not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to deal with a small volume of electronic information, e-discovery methodologies developed for large document cases, including near duplicate and email thread grouping, statistical sampling, predictive coding, and content analysis, can be equally applied to small cases to ensure that the overall discovery cost is as low as possible.
For example, a 10,000 record collection would require a review of about 400 records in order to apply predictive coding or statistical sampling. Given the current pricing of the various predictive coding solutions, it would cost under $500 to analyse this data. Combine that with about 10 hours of lawyer time to review the 400 documents, and you would have your records all sorted and prioritized. You can then shave off the ones that are likely to be irrelevant, skip the ones you’ve already reviewed, and probably spend another 10 hours or so reviewing the rest. Compare that to the cost to print out 10 bankers boxes of paper, along with the manual (and tedious) lawyer review, and you can clearly see how this approach can save thousands of dollars and millions of brain cells.
Wortzman Nickle can add value to any size case. Call us to find out how.
On Monday, September 19, 2011, Sedona Canada, the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Ontario Bar Association, the Advocates Society and the Ontario e-Discovery Implementation Committee collaborated to present “The Ontario e-Discovery Institute: e-Discovery for All Cases and All Lawyers” in Toronto, Ontario. Reported to be the largest e-discovery conference in North America, over 610 people attended in person or by live webinar. It was a very diverse audience from across the country, illustrating a very real interest in all things e-discovery.
Susan Wortzman and Susan Nickle participated on panels on “e-Discovery Negligence” and “Cost Containment and e-Discovery”, respectively. Other panels featured Canadian and American judges and masters, members of the Bar from across Canada and the United States, vendors and litigation support professionals. This multi-perspective approach led to interesting and spirited discussions about privacy, cost-containment, emerging technologies, and other topical e-discovery issues.
Stay tuned to our blog as we feature some of these issues in upcoming posts!
On March 5th, the New York Times published an article entitled “Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software” which discussed the “new e-discovery software that can analyze millions of documents in a fraction of the time, and at a fraction of the cost consumed by human lawyers, even deducing patterns of behaviour”. It discussed the explosion of electronically stored information, the technology used to analyze that data and how all this has disrupted the legal job market.
The article provided a clear and concise overview of the new systems available to assist legal teams. However, the conclusion that these technologies will replace “expensive lawyers” misses the mark. All of the technologies mentioned in the article require a combination of machine and human interaction in order to operate. Humans have to “teach” the computer to identify relevant information. As with any educational process, the more highly skilled the teacher, the better the lesson will be. What the technologies will replace are lawyers working at very basic levels without a strong understanding of the case.
Although the new technologies will force lawyers to learn new ways to approach document discovery, the technologies are just one cog in the legal machine. Lawyers still need to understand the content of the documents to build their case. The new systems will help lawyers to zero in on the documents containing the relevant content.
No matter how sophisticated a computer system gets, it can’t make subjective evaluations. The legal process is not black and white – it’s ultimately based on judgement and inference. As a result, it will always require highly skilled talent.
Tuesday morning, Lexis Nexis sponsored a panel discussion on proportionality, discovery plans, and the effects that the new Ontario rules are having on the way litigation is being carried out. The panel consisted of Master Calum Macleod, Kelly Freidman of Ogilvy Renault, and our very own Susan Nickle.
Proportionality was described as one component of a set of rules designed to encourage a cultural change in the legal community. It is no longer acceptable to proceed unilaterally – parties must come together sooner and communicate more often, in order establish a real dialog and focus on the issues at the beginning of the matter, not at the end.
The new rules, and particularly the requirement for a discovery plan, are leading lawyers to develop a better understanding of technology. To be sure, most lawyers will not become techno-geeks, but it is important for lawyers to understand how electronic information is stored and where it likely resides. It is equally important for lawyers to appreciate that discovery has not changed just because documents are stored electronically – in the end, the case will hinge on same handful of documents. The only difference is that those documents will fit on a CD rather than in a banker’s box.
There were many questions from the approximately 90 people in attendance, including dialogue about the concept of proportionality forcing litigants to think of alternative forms of proof, as some traditional forms of proof may be too cost-prohibitive.
The seminar clearly illustrated that the new rules are having an influence, and will continue to shape litigation into a more manageable, cost effective tool to resolve disputes.
The issue of cost allocation of electronic information in the context of the discovery process has not been resolved in Canada. As a general rule, the interim costs of preservation, retrieval, review and production of electronic records is borne by the party producing them. Similarly, the opposing party is required to incur the cost of making a copy for its own use, just as it had previously with paper documents. There has been a hesitancy on the part of the Canadian judiciary to make other cost-shifting orders as costs in Canada are generally awarded at the final stage of litigation.
Then comes e-discovery which has given rise to a radical expansion in the quantity and type of disclosure. Sedona Canada Principle 12 clearly provides for cost sharing or shifting before the final stage of litigation either by agreement of the parties or by court order.
Master Brott of the Ontario Superior Court has recently made such an interim costs order. In Borst v. Zilli, [2009]O.J. No. 4115, the parties agreed to retain an independent computer consultant (“ICC”) to copy the defendants’ computer data. They also agreed to retain an independent solicitor (“ISS”) to review the documentation for relevancy and privilege before it be produced to the plaintiffs. The Court held that the costs of the ICC should be borne by the plaintiffs in this case and that the costs of the ISS should be shared equally between the parties.
Litigants beware – Canadian courts are starting to make interim cost-shifting awards with respect to accessible electronic records! If you are concerned about the costs of your e-discovery litigation and how to best manage e-discovery in Canada, contact Wortzman Nickle.
Blog | admin November 30, 2011 | 
Comments (0) 
