OCTOBER 2013
Legal Focus
83
IT is more than a technicality; it is a driver of success.
This month, Lawyer Monthlybenefits from an exclusive article on International Discovery from Bernard Regan, Manager at RGL Forensics and Mark Deem, Partner at Edwards Wildman.
W
e are drowning in data. Whether in our personal or private lives (and increasingly the two are overlapping) we are creating ever more
documents, communicating on ever more
platforms and leaving trails of electronic evidence for the lawyers to use litigation in ever more places. Pity the poor lawyer therefore, faced with conducting an electronic disclosure exercise of terabytes of data, in order fundamentally to discharge the same pre-digital era test under English civil procedure, which requires a reasonable search for documents which might adversely affect the party’s own case, or indeed might support another party’s case. Potential costs sanctions are awaiting a non-complying party.
Faced with this position, standard disclosure using traditional methods is simply no longer achievable. A physical search for documents – which was always a costly and time-consuming exercise – is insufficient to discharge a party’s disclosure obligations.
Increasingly, however, an electronic keyword search conducted at local server level - a frequent response to the eDisclosure practice direction requirements – is also unlikely to achieve more than entry-level compliance with the rules. Seldom will it ever give a party to litigation a competitive edge, which can be the difference between a successful outcome (either at court or through an early, favourable settlement) and failure.
What is called for now is a hybrid approach: combining a comprehensive, forensic search to collate a sufficiently wide data set, with a robust, strategic interrogation of that data set in an electronic environment.
This approach, which calls for lawyers to work hand-in- hand with trusted forensic IT providers, still creates a number of challenges.
• Data is being increasingly stored by companies in multiple locations, sometimes in other countries (thereby creating potential jurisdictional issues) and often in large data centres, under the control of third parties. The forensic acquisition of data and the transportation of that material across jurisdictional borders therefore represents a very real concern. This is all before any data is processed and interrogated.
• To the extent that personal data (or sensitive personal data) is likely to be involved, appropriate
consents will need to be obtained and procedures followed by the company, its service providers and lawyers.
• As if this was not troublesome enough, the advent of the ubiquitous but ill-defined “cloud” has made the tasks even harder: where is the data actually being held? Does the relevant party genuinely have access to it? If so, on what terms? Perhaps crucially, does the disclosing party know what documents it actually has, where they are and how to deal with its cloud provider quickly to get them?
• Once collated, the sheer volume of data needs to be streamlined effectively so that important documents are captured and assessed quickly from a strategic point of view. A chronological review of all documents in turn by lawyers (however junior or hard working) is inefficient and costly: but by deploying available technology (including predictive coding),
in
combination with legal expertise, a party can swiftly distil a wider data set into a focussed core.
As the data explosion continues – and terabytes of data turn into petabytes of data; the uptake of personal and corporate clouds for storage increases; and the convergence between public and private data becomes an irreversible reality – there is a real risk that the true purpose of disclosure is undermined. Rather than seeking to level the playing-field between two parties in litigation and to open up access to documents to both sides in the pursuit of justice, the exercise becomes more about whose data (whether by accident or design) can be retrieved and whether it was done so appropriately.
This inevitably leads to an increased risk of satellite litigation, focussing not on the merits of the case but on the ways in which the disclosure exercise can be challenged. Absent any change to the rules, this is the reality of where we are heading, especially if parties continue to conduct disclosure in the traditional manner
Against this background, a party who is truly “Disclosure Ready” will ensure it has the upper hand in any litigation.
It is the party, which has a plan and knows where its data is located, who will be able to ensure timely and cost-efficient compliance with its disclosure obligations. It is the party, which brings together its forensic IT providers and lawyers at an early stage in the litigation process, who will be able to ensure that data is stored
in a sensible manner, necessary consents obtained and legal issues anticipated and resolved in advance. It is the party, which can quickly collate a wide data set and use both the technology and legal expertise to establish the core documents, whose disclosure exercise is less vulnerable to attack.
A well-executed, pre-planned disclosure exercise can give the all important edge in the litigation process in these days of unprecedented data production. Are you disclosure ready? Now, more than ever, IT is the key. LM
Bernard Regan, Manager at RGL Forensics
Bernard has in-depth experience of a number of It systems and specialises in the application and management of computer forensics processes. this includes conducting investigations, implementation of document and data e-discovery systems, data analysis and data visualisation.
www.rgl.com
Mark deem, Partner at Edwards Wildman
Mark is a commercial litigator specialising in technology, media and telecommunications (tMt) litigation, financial services disputes and contentious privacy and data protection issues. He has experience in a variety of industry sectors, including aviation and aerospace, banking and finance and tMt.
www.edwardswildman.com
www.lawyer-monthly.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140