Experts say a troublesome trend is emerging in the world of
electronic discovery that should be a warning sign to anyone
working in IT, especially anyone with responsibility for corporate
data.In response to the new
Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure (FRCP), companies engaged in e-discovery are
now routinely being asked by the courts to produce vast quantities
of information in a relatively short period of time. Intel, with
99,000 employees worldwide and an average email load of 3 million
messages per day, was ordered by the court in March to recover
1,000 emails in 30 days. Needless to say, the company was unable to
find them.
"It's becoming a normal course of e-discovery to engage in
extraordinary action," said George J. Socha, founder of Socha
Consulting LLC, an e-discovery consulting service. "Companies are
forced to search each and every device where data could possibly be
stored …This has the potential to massively disrupt business and,
in some cases, bankrupt companies," he said.
Socha's latest report on the market estimates that US revenue
from e-discovery tools and services was about $2 billion in 2006,
up 51% from 2005. He anticipates the market will grow at
approximately 33% from 2006 to 2007, 28% from 2007 to 2008 and 23%
from 2008 to 2009. If these growth estimates are realized, the
e-discovery market in the U.S. will exceed $4 billion by 2009.
While this is great news for suppliers -- and there are over 600
of them in the U.S. -- it's a nightmare for companies picking up
the e-discovery tab every month. "It's a major cost that doesn't
add to the bottom line," said Mike McGowan, chief operations
officer at Deepdive Technologies, a supplier of e-discovery data
collection tools. On top of the cost, McGowan says there's huge
confusion among IT on what the right equipment is, and in many
cases, people are double spending as they buy one product, which
then fails to meet all their needs.
On the legal side, Craig Bertschi, partner at law firm
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP and chairman of the company's e-discovery
team, said that court decisions are "all over the map" for
e-discovery, as the rules are so new and the technology is not well
understood by judges and lawyers. In the worst cases, lawyers are
acting in bad faith because there are too many grey areas.
Hide and seek
Qualcomm Inc. lost a patent case against rival Broadcom Corp.
recently, and adding insult to injury, Qualcomm's counsel
deliberately concealed evidence, leading to even more trouble for
the mobile phone chipmaker. Qualcomm's lawyers produced more than
200,000 emails and other documents pertaining to the case four
months after the jury trial was over.
"With email being sent to more than one person and able to exist
in so many different places, it is impossible to hide it," said
Brett Shavers, president of e3Discovery LLC. "It can be very
damaging to withhold it, and companies are ill-advised ever to do
so."
Timothy Block, attorney for Best Buy in a class-action lawsuit
brought against the company in 2003, went one step further and
falsified two emails and one internal memo in order to improve Best
Buy's image. Obviously, faking evidence doesn't go over well with
the courts, and the judge might end up issuing a default judgment
against Best Buy for this egregious contempt. The case is still
ongoing.
E-discovery not getting simpler
Bertschi says there won't be a silver bullet on the technology
side that will make e-discovery any simpler. Instead, he said he
expects the court system and practitioners to begin to learn and
understand more about IT systems. As a result, there will be more
standardized procedures, he believes.
"The amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are
fairly broad and don't provide guidance for the day-to-day
operation of litigation. So, you see a disparity of opinions: some
courts deciding an issue one way, some courts deciding an issue
another way," Bertschi said. Eventually, the courts will reach a
consensus on how e-discovery issues are handled. "Five years from
now," Bertschi said, "we won't be asking questions like: 'Do I need
to preserve metadata? Is there any need for me to have a client
retain a backup tape? Can discovery be had from a disaster recovery
system?' Those questions will all be answered uniformly … We're at
the very beginning of these issues now, and so, you are going to
get differing opinions".