All posts tagged international ediscovery

Australia Gets in the Predictive Coding Game

G’day, mate!

As we have said before, predictive coding (also known as Technology Assisted Review or TAR) is taking the globe by storm. First the United States, then Ireland and England, and now Australia. Ediscovery practitioners take heed: significant predictive coding developments are afoot in Australia.

(Special Note: If you are looking to stay informed on ediscovery around the world, don’t miss this whitepaper, “A Practical Guide to Cross-Border Ediscovery.”)

Predictive Coding: From New York City to the Australian Outback

Late last year, Australia joined the list of countries tackling predictive coding issues when Justice Vickery from the Supreme Court of the State of Victoria issued a key opinion in McConnell Dowell Constructors v. Santam.

In this case, the parties faced massive costs to review 1,400,000 documents, and they could not agree on a review method. Justice Vickery appointed a Special Referee to deliver a report to the court addressing the appropriate management of discovery in the proceeding. Relying on previous TAR decisions from the U.S. and Europe, as well as the Special Referee’s recommendation to use TAR, the court approved predictive coding as an effective method of document review when “the cost of traditional discovery processes in a case such as this dictates that [such processes] are not appropriate.”

Notably, the McConnell opinion made it clear that the courts, not the parties, would have the final determination in whether predictive coding will be employed in civil proceedings in Victoria state court. Specifically, Justice Vickery held that “the Court may order discovery by technology assisted review, whether or not it is consented to by the parties” in cases where the volume of ESI is substantial and “the costs of research may not be reasonable and proportionate.”

However, McConnell was not Victorian litigators’ first exposure to TAR in the courtroom. Three months before the McConnell decision, the Supreme Court of Victoria released a Standard Operating Procedure (TEC SOP 5 [TAR]) to provide litigants with interim measures for using TAR in construction and engineering cases. On January 30, 2017, the court replaced TEC SOP 5 with Technology in Civil Litigation Practice Note SC Gen 5, opening up TAR for general use in Victoria’s commercial courts.

Consent or No Consent: That is the Predictive Coding Question

While predictive coding is gaining traction as an effective tool to tackle massive document sets, there is no bright line on whether a party can be required to use TAR. Contrary to the holding in McConnell, U.S. courts have not compelled parties to leverage TAR. In 2016, two key opinions, Hyles v. New York City, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100390 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016), and In re Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2016 BL 347130 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2016), acknowledged the efficiencies associated with predictive coding, but refused to force a party to leverage the cutting-edge technology. That being said, U.S. attorneys need to be prepared that the days of insisting on manual review may one day soon be bygone. As noted by Judge Peck in Hyles, “[t]here may come a time when . . . it might be unreasonable for a party to refuse to use TAR . . . [but][w]e are not there yet.”

What’s Next for the Land Down Under?

Victoria is not the only state in Australia getting in on the ediscovery action. Courts in New South Wales abide by their state Supreme Court’s 2008 Practice Note No. SC Gen & for Use of Technology encouraging parties to consider technology to discover and inspect documents. While this practice note and other similar guidance in the Australian federal court system do not specifically reference TAR, savvy Australian practitioners know that this will likely change in the near future.

Looking to stay up to speed on global ediscovery practices? Don’t miss this whitepaper, “A Practical Guide to Cross-Border Ediscovery.”

January 2017 Ediscovery Case Summaries

Failure to Preserve Interactive Website Data Held Insufficient to Impose Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)
FTC v. Directv, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176873 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016)

Jury to Decide Issue of Intent for Spoliation
Cahill v. Dart, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 166831 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2016)

Australian Court Takes Predictive Coding Down Under
McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd v. Santam Ltd & Ors (No 1),
[2016] VSC 734 (Dec. 2, 2016)

Illinois State Court Leverages Proportionality Standards in FRCP 26(b)(1) to Determine if Forensic Imaging is too Intrusive
Carlson v. Jerousek, 2016 IL App (2d) 151248 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2016)

Kansas Court Rejects Proportionality Arguments and Boilerplate Objections
Duffy v. Lawrence Mem. Hosp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176848 (D. Kan. Dec. 21, 2016)

Crossing Borders: Where Discovery and Privacy Collide

international ediscovery

Litigation teams face new challenges when an ediscovery project crosses borders – from multilingual data and unique cultural norms to unfamiliar laws, regulations and data privacy practices. In addition, the international data protection landscape is changing and U.S. businesses with global operations need to be prepared. Companies need to think carefully about the risks of transferring data across borders.

To help practitioners navigate these challenges, Kroll Ontrack synthesized information on more than seventeen countries to create a succinct, new guidebook, A Practical Guide to Cross-Border Ediscovery: Insights for U.S. Lawyers.

This guide includes practical insights into how organizations all over the world are managing a wide range of business challenges using ediscovery technology, including:

  • Case studies on cross-border litigation and FCPA investigations;
  • An “At a Glance” visual map that shows the legal system, applicable rules and ediscovery practices for key countries in the Americas, EMEA and APAC regions;
  • Short summaries from experts on the ediscovery landscape in key countries; and
  • A timeline of EU Data Privacy and Protection milestones.

Litigation, compliance demands and investigations are part of the regular course of business for U.S. lawyers. With global considerations and cross-border implications, law firms and companies now rely on mobile ediscovery technologies, in-country data centers and local expertise to empower the processing and transferring of data in a compliant and cost-effective manner. This guide is just one way that Kroll Ontrack is here to help attorneys and their counsel thrive and adapt in a changing ediscovery world. Read the new cross-border guide today.

Ediscovery in China: Traditions, Rules and Customs You Need to Know

Ediscovery in China

On June 22, Kroll Ontrack managing director and APAC ediscovery expert Kate Chan will discuss the Chinese ediscovery landscape, so you will be prepared when you need to know the traditions, rules and customs when faced with a regulatory investigation or cross-border litigation.

Register today to learn about Ediscovery in China!

Ediscovery in China: Traditions, Rules and Customs You Don’t Know

The Chinese legal landscape is often seen as daunting and secretive; a laborious task for an American legal professional to master. Specifically, Chinese data protection and privacy laws in particular provide a challenge to any international ediscovery project. Because of the substantial economic growth resulting in higher volumes of data in China, as well as the expanding complexities of ediscovery law, a practitioner that is not familiar with Chinese law can find themselves at a significant disadvantage, especially when faced with a regulatory investigation or cross-border litigation.

To help you meet these unique challenges head on, we’ve enlisted seasoned APAC ediscovery expert Kate Chan to offer the information and strategies you need to manage Chinese ediscovery.

Specifically, this webinar will cover:

  • The implication of China’s regulatory framework on ediscovery
  • Recent developments in Chinese ediscovery practices
  • Tips for managing the unique issues related to managing ESI in China
  • Ways Chinese ediscovery differs from ediscovery practices in other APAC countries

Click here to get more information about this webinar and to register.

Kate Chan is a New York attorney who started practicing on Wall Street. She is a native of Hong Kong and is fluent in both Mandarin and Cantonese. She is the Regional Managing Director of Kroll Ontrack’s Legal Technologies unit in Asia Pacific.

UK High Court Approves the Use of Predictive Coding in Litigation

UK Predictive Coding

Legal technology providers in the UK have a lot to celebrate as the English High Court recently approved the use of predictive coding for disclosure in litigation.

The judgment, handed down by Master Matthews in Pyrrho Investments Ltd. v. MWB Property Ltd. [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch), gave official judicial authorization for the use of predictive coding in High Court proceedings. Summing up his decision, Master Matthews stated that predictive coding is just as accurate, if not more so than a manual review using keyword searches, mirroring the sentiments shared by Judge Peck’s 2012 opinion in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe regarding the appropriateness of predictive coding and its potential benefits. Master Matthews also estimated that predictive coding would offer significant cost savings in this particular case and that the possible disclosure of over two million documents done via traditional manual review would be disproportionate and “unreasonable.”

To read a short summary of the judgment, please click here, or read the judgment in full here.

Predictive Coding Goes Global

Predictive coding has become a global phenomenon over the past few years. The United States and Ireland have led the way in giving judicial approval to predictive coding, with Judge Peck’s Da Silva Moore opinion setting the predictive coding tone in 2012. Since then, the United States has continued to adopt the use of predictive coding, with a number of substantive cases further establishing its use. Ireland recently embraced predictive coding as well in the 2015 Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd & ors v. Quinn & ors case holding that, in the discovery of large data sets, technology-assisted review using predictive coding is at least as accurate as, and probably more accurate than, the manual or linear method of identifying relevant documents. Not surprisingly, the Pyrrho judgment in the UK references these cases in detail.

Combatting Predictive Coding Objections

Despite these cases and the ever-increasing sophistication of the technology itself, the UK law community has been somewhat reluctant to make use of the technology, as explored in this study by Kroll Ontrack Legal Consultant and former litigation lawyer Hitesh Chowdhry. In Chowdhry’s white paper, “Rage against the Machine; Attitudes to Predictive Coding Amongst UK Lawyers,” he notes that his study revealed that the main barriers to adopting predictive coding technology were:

  • Risk aversion and mistrust of the technology’s accuracy
  • Belief that predictive coding would have a negative effect on revenue
  • Satisfaction with existing methods and a belief that existing practices offered more accuracy than studies have suggested
  • Insufficient understanding and knowledge of the complex predictive coding process
  • Diffusion among professionals

The UK Pyrrho judgment counters many of the fears uncovered in Chowdhry’s study by stating that the technology is accurate and offers cost savings. The efficiency of TAR and the cost savings offered by predictive coding will undoubtedly be popular with clients and potentially will give a competitive edge in winning work. Hopefully, this ruling will encourage more UK firms to take advantage of the benefits offered by predictive coding.

For more information about this technology, read Kroll Ontrack’s e-book, “Mastering Predictive Coding: The Ultimate Guide.”

Explore the Global Expansion of Ediscovery

Ediscovery is in the midst of global change. Even for countries with legal frameworks that don’t require parties to disclose electronic documents, global ediscovery is emerging as a critical component of business and corporate governance.

Kroll Ontrack experts created a new, interactive map to help you explore global ediscovery insights. Organized by nation and theme, Ediscovery Goes Global: 2016 Trends” explores the influence of data privacy laws and regulations, cyber security concerns, advancements in computer forensics and the evolution of technology assisted review around the world.

  • Have you ever wondered what the largest emerging market in ediscovery is?
  • How, why and when does ediscovery activity increase in the Netherlands?
  • Where is the use of predictive coding expanding?
  • Ever wondered how China deals with data protection and privacy in ediscovery?
  • Coming out of significant recessions, will Spain & Italy’s use of ediscovery technologies and techniques expand?
  • How do computer forensic tools influence ediscovery in France?
  • Which APAC countries are seeing the most ediscovery growth?

Click here to explore the map and learn more about trends in the hottest emerging ediscovery markets.

It’s Your Turn! Vote Today for the National Law Journal’s ‘Best of 2016’

The polls are open, and it’s awards season. Whatever your persuasion, it’s your turn to vote. The National Law Journal recently announced the finalists for its ‘Best of 2016,’ and Kroll Ontrack is proud to be nominated in NINE categories!

  • Best end-to-end litigation consulting firm
  • Best end-to-end ediscovery provider
  • Best technology assisted review ediscovery solution
  • Best data and technology management ediscovery provider
  • Best data recovery solution provider
  • Best managed document review services
  • Best managed ediscovery and litigation support services provider
  • Best online review platform
  • Best case management software

From now until Friday, February 5, you can vote in the annual reader’s choice survey. This is your chance to rate the products and services you’ve been using in litigation. And it’s an opportunity for those of us in the industry to receive valuable feedback.

While you don’t have to answer every question, we greatly appreciate your support and your feedback – thank you for taking the time!

It’s time to vote.

Excavation, Evolution and EMEA Ediscovery: Spotlight on the UK and Germany

What do dinosaurs and data have in common? While it may seem like a strange comparison, excavating a fossilized Tyrannosaurus Rex may not be all that different from finding the most relevant information in terabytes of data. Just as paleontologists have adopted modern technology to locate and date fossils (or create terrifying hybrid dinosaurs such as those in the summer blockbuster Jurassic World), international ediscovery is experiencing its own technology revolution, with firms and companies adopting new techniques and technology to maximize accuracy and efficiency.

Through two recent surveys focusing on EMEA ediscovery, an in-house market study on ediscovery in Germany and a collaborative survey of 101 general counsel and in-house lawyers in the UK with Legal Week Intelligence, Kroll Ontrack unearthed just how firms and companies are handling ediscovery, litigation and regulatory data demands across the pond. Below you will find a summary of these reports, to tide you over until you get time to read both documents in their entirety.

International Ediscovery: Intriguing Themes

  • Regulations, Conflicting Roles, and Costs – UK survey respondents identified an increasingly regulated environment, straddling the need to be legal advisers and commercial advisers and controlling costs as the most pressing challenges facing legal departments today.
  • Internal and Local Tendencies – Two-thirds of the companies surveyed in the UK say they use their own technology and software solutions, although not many have sophisticated ediscovery solutions at their disposal. While companies in Germany generally outsource data processing to external providers, they prefer to use experts with roots in Germany.
  • Differences in Implementation – While nearly 60% of the German companies surveyed recognized the necessary nature of ediscovery, only 20% have response plans for ediscovery projects. In the UK, ediscovery has been around for more than 10 years in litigation and 53% of the surveyed companies are also now embracing sophisticated technology proactively to review their ESI for compliance and potential legal risks, although a third stated that they do not use technology for this process.

Ediscovery in the EU: Dramatic Differences

  • Predictive Coding – While the use of predictive coding has been warmly received in the US for quite some time, EU courts have not had occasion to sanction its usage. However, the Republic of Ireland High Court approved the use of machine learning technology in a case in March – the first time a court in the British Isles has done so. The ruling addresses major concerns regarding predictive coding and seeks to sway the skeptics.
  • No Formal Rules – In contrast to the formal discovery rules in the US and the UK, Germany has no formal legal requirement for ediscovery in civil litigation. That said, ediscovery technologies are nevertheless consistently being used in litigation which indicates just how useful using ediscovery technology can be in case building. With over half of the companies having experienced an ediscovery incident in the past year and a third predicting they will face an ediscovery incident in the next 12 months, being ready for ediscovery is becoming even more important.
  • Differing Demands – Internal investigations, regulatory investigations and litigation arising outside of Germany are the major drivers of ediscovery services in Germany whereas domestic litigation followed by internal investigations and international litigation dominate ediscovery projects in the UK.

What Lies Ahead for EMEA Ediscovery?

  • Specialization – Given the growth of ediscovery practices and professionals in the US, experts expect a similar trend to take hold in the UK, Germany and the rest of EMEA, with ediscovery becoming a legal specialism in its own right.
  • Education –While individuals in Germany are highly aware of the relevance of ediscovery in legal proceedings, there is still a need for greater education regarding the ins and outs of ediscovery. In the UK, there is scope for corporate counsel to learn more about ediscovery, given their dependence on law firms to guide them. The cost benefits of unbundling legal services and relying on experts for ediscovery is becoming very apparent especially in relation to document review.

Before the summer ends, read these two new reports to advance your knowledge of ediscovery practices in Europe.

Webinar on-Demand: Successful International Ediscovery

International Ediscovery

Ediscovery is approached differently in almost every country around the world, and international ediscovery best practices are evolving quickly in response to global litigation and investigations. Knowing a country’s approach to ediscovery is integral to ensuring that a multi-national ediscovery project goes smoothly.

Kroll Ontrack recently presented a webinar, Delivering Successful Ediscovery Projects across the Globe, hosted by ACEDS.  Panelists included:

  • Emily Cobb an attorney in New York City at Ropes and Gray,
  • Andrew Szczech a director at Kroll Ontrack, based in London, and
  • Thomas Sely a manager at Kroll Ontrack, based in France.

Together, these experts discussed the current complexities of global ediscovery, and how to ensure that your next international ediscovery project is successful.

Data Protection, Privacy and Data Transfer Laws

Despite the global nature of ediscovery, national boundaries still play a major role. For example, different countries have different approaches to privacy, making international data transfers risky. As discussed by the webinar panelists, it’s best to check local laws before moving any data, to ensure compliance with whatever privacy or trade secret laws that might apply. Sometimes, legal and technology innovations can be leveraged to avoid much of the risk.

Cultural Considerations, Traditions and Customs

Next, the experts on this webinar stressed that it’s not enough to understand the local laws on ediscovery. Even in our modern data-centric world, various cultures around the world view legal obligations and privacy in very different ways. For example, employees in the US may be accustomed to a limited expectation of privacy in the workplace and broad legal discovery, but in many European and Asian countries, the customs and attitudes greatly differ.

Practicalities of International Ediscovery

In addition to a solid understanding of local laws and customs, the webinar panelists concluded the presentation with some techniques and best practices. Specifically, they addressed the following topics:

  • Collecting data scattered in different countries
  • Processing across various jurisdictions
  • Reviewing documents in multiple languages
  • Dealing with clients with different ediscovery experience levels in their countries
  • Straddling cost models across countries

Kroll Ontrack – Global Reach, Local Expertise

From collecting data in hundreds of countries each year to hosting petabytes of information in US, UK, Europe, and Asia data centers – including a new data center in France – Kroll Ontrack is both local and global.

International Ediscovery: Best Practices Around the World

Over six thousand athletes from eighty-five countries have gathered to compete. When you sit down to watch the events, remember that behind every flag is a unique legal system, with diverse privacy laws and ediscovery rubrics. As these laws become increasingly intertwined, legal professionals – like athletes – must constantly push themselves to manage international ediscovery in the digital age.

United States

A central theme in American discovery is that the search for truth in litigation outweighs individual privacy concerns, with the exception of personally identifiable information. The 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are the heart of ediscovery, namely Federal Rules 26 and 34 which define electronically stored information (ESI) as a discoverable source of information. There are new proposed amendments to Rules 26 and 37 on the ediscovery horizon in 2014.

Guided by few appellate decisions, US district courts and magistrate judges are the architects behind an expansive body of ediscovery case law. Proportionality (barring unduly burdensome ESI production and preservation) and cooperation (mandating party-to-party ESI discourse early) are defining facets of American ediscovery. In 2013, courts have expressed unrivalled legal-technological proficiency by tackling several complex ediscovery issues: taxation of ediscovery costs,1 the role of wilfulness in the duty to preserve,2 and marrying smart technology with document processing and review.3

England and Wales

The shifting tides of ediscovery impact both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Civil Procedure Rule 31 governs disclosure. Its counterpart, Practice Direction 31B, is the primary source for coping with issues like the preservation of ESI, defining a “reasonable search,” and assessing the level of party communication required before the case management conference.

The UK takes a fundamentally different approach to discovery than the US. While US courts seek to produce all relevant documents to a case, CPR 31.5(7) limits disclosure in the UK “to that which is necessary to deal with the case justly.” Courts in England and Wales now have a “menu” of options for disclosure, which range from no disclosure to full blown train of enquiry disclosure with issues-based disclosure and reliance-based disclosure somewhere in between.

The European Union

The EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (“the Directive”) mandates signatory countries to implement laws restricting the processing of “personal data”—information “relating to an identified or identifiable” person. Moreover, the Directive bars the transfer of personal data to non-EU states unless the country provides for “adequate protection” of personal data and marks a significant detour from the American approach to data protection.4

In 2012, the European Commission proposed a comprehensive reform to the Directive to protect “the fundamental right of data protection and to guarantee the free flow of personal data between Member States.”5 Set to take effect in 2015, the new data protection regime bolsters the rights of data subjects, imposes heightened obligations on organizations and strengthens enforcement measures. This rubric, combined with many civil law systems, provides for minimal discovery of ESI in EU litigation. Coupled with several countries adopting blocking statutes to prevent the transfer of personal data across borders, these new protection laws also create tension with the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which seek to produce all relevant electronic records.

Canada

Throughout the Canadian provinces, the 2008 Sedona Conference® Publication, The Sedona Canada Principles, has provided an impetus for developing ediscovery rulemaking. For example, the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure make an explicit call for cooperation and a meet and confer conference when discussing discoverability of electronic data. Further, they require counsel to consult with The Sedona Canada Principles.

However, following the footprints of the EU, Canada has taken a rigorous approach to data protection regulation at the legislative level. Private sector data use is controlled by the Personal information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, a federal privacy law designed to “support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed.”

Asia (APAC)

Ediscovery law in APAC is evolving at the speed of light. Some countries have passed ediscovery guidelines (e.g., Singapore); however, many countries, like South Korea and Japan, are still considering implementing ediscovery laws. In the APAC region, ediscovery largely impacts international companies with US-based litigation and antitrust concerns. Local counsel and local service providers can provide immense value when attempting to successfully collect data in the region, while navigating the vast legal system differences.
As the market continues to blast through geographic boundaries, watch for countries to continue to parse their existing rules against the demands of litigation, develop laws that cushion these changes, and shift the burden of knowledge to attorneys engaging in international data discovery. It is only a matter of time before a case on your docket, in your firm or on your desk involves multinational discovery laws. Also, for a deeper dive into APAC ediscovery, view this previously recorded Kroll Ontrack/eDJ webinar, Ediscovery in Asia: What U.S. Legal Professionals Need to Know.

1 See Gabriel Tech. Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 2013 WL 410103 (S.D.Cal. Feb. 1, 2013).
2 See Moore v. Citgo Co., LP, 735 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2013).
3 See Gordon v. Kaleida Health, 2013 WL 2250579 (W.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013).
4 American data protection law involves a concoction of legislation (e.g., the Fair Credit Reporting Act), self-regulation, and industry regulation.
5 Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012PC0010:
en:NOT

 
css.php