Wireless Access Code: 9166703926

1. Wireless Access Code: 9166703926

2. eDiscovery A Path to Scale the Matterhorn of Data and Rules and Come Out On Top

5. Progress

6. Progress • 2003 – Chaos • 2006 – Federal Rules • Visibility for eDiscovery • Need for education • 2005-2012 • EDRM – common language • Standards • Guidelines • Resources

7. Participation: 2005-2012

8. EDRM in 2012

10. The Move to the Left Processing Review Preservation Production Identification Information Management Presentation Collection Analysis

11. The Move to the Left Processing Information Management Preservation Review Identification Presentation Production Collection Analysis

12. The Move to the Left

13. Bridging the gap between IT, Legal, Compliance, and RIM

14. Contact information Tom Gelbmann Gelbmann & Associates, LLC 290 Grandview Avenue West Roseville, MN 55113 (651) 483-0022 www.gelbmann.biz http://edrm.net http://www.apersee.com

15. Litigation Support: Bridge Between IT and Lawyers • Early Interpretation of EDRM • IT Emphasis = Left Side • Legal Emphasis = Right Side • Emphasis Has Shifted Left for Everyone Involved • Identification • Preservation • Collection

16. Identification When Litigation is Imminent... Identifying Relevant Data Sources AND Rule Out Non-relevant Data Sources Process Entails a Series of Interviews (IT Staff, Custodians, Legal Team, etc…) and Data Mapping End Goal is to Prepare a Defensible Collection Action Plan 16

17. Preservation • Pension Committee v. Banc of America, 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010) • Failure to issue a written litigation hold; • Failure to ease routine deletion of e-mail; • Failure to collect ESI from key people; • Failure to collect ESI from retained files of ex-employees; and • Failure to preserve back-up tapes if only source of relevant information 17

18. Litigation Hold: The Duty to Preserve • “A litigant has a duty to preserve evidence that it knows or should know is relevant to imminent or ongoing litigation.” US ex rel. Koch v. Koch Industries, Inc., 197 F.R.D. 463, 482 (N.D. Okla. 1998) • “Once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a ‘litigation hold’ to ensure the preservation of relevant documents.” Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 18

19. Preservation – What Not to Do • Pringle v. William Adams, Jr. et al., SACV10 - 1656 JST (C.D. Cal 2010) • Applicable in More and More Cases • Sanctions • Adverse Inference • Case Dismissal 19

20. Collection • Self-collection – The Fox Guarding the Hen House? • Green v. Blitz U.S.A., Inc, 2011 U.S. Dist. (E.D. Tex. 2011) • Develop a Plan to Demonstrate Good Faith • Enlist Good Vendor Assistance 20

21. Why Such a BIG Deal? • Reduce Risk Exposure • Maximize Successful Lawyering • Lack of In-house Expertise Translates to Dependency on External Vendors and Associated Costs • Impact on Legal Staff Resources to Handle E-Discovery 21

22. Trend Tracking - The Judiciary and the Rules • Trends Resulting in Modifications to Both Process of E-Discovery and How Rules will be Shaped • Five Years Ago - E-mail Biggest Challenge • Today - Cloud Computing and Social Media • Tomorrow - ?? - - Make Way for New Technology 22

23. Cloud Computing

24. E-Discovery and Social Media

25. E-Discovery and Social Media • Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 717 F. Supp. 2d 965 (C.D. Cal. 2010) • Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) 18 U.S.C. Section 2701 (a) (1) • Courts face challenge of balancing intent and wave of new technology

26. Predictive Coding Automated process that culls through electronic data and focuses on non-keyword attributes such as context or word frequency “Computer-assisted review is not a magic, Staples-Easy-Button solution appropriate for all cases. The technology exists and should be used where appropriate.” Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe et al., 11-Civ.01279 (S.D.N.Y February 24, 2012) 26

27. Judiciary Involvement Federal Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure 7th Circuit E-Discovery Pilot Program 27

28. 7th Circuit E-Discovery Pilot Program • Established in 2009 • Mission - Develop Pre-trial Litigation Principles Governing E-Discovery to Reduce Cost and Burden • Phase One • October 2009 - March 2010 • Phase Two • May 2010 - May 2012 • Phase Three • In Progress

29. Recommended Steps • Establish a Unit Focused on Office-wide Support • Educate Attorneys, Paralegals, Client Agencies • Foster In-house E-Discovery Workgroup • Legal • IT • Build In-house Capacity • Identify Qualified Vendors for Advice and Support • Research and Leverage Tools for Success 29

30. Contact information Lynette Vann Manager, Southern California Litigation Support California Office of the Attorney General 213.897.7594 Lynette.Vann@doj.ca.gov

31. LexisNexis® E-Discovery Solutions • Gain greater control over your cases with flexible, integrated software and hosting options. • Flexibility • Benefit from products that work together easily, helping you achieve more efficient, effective investigation, analysis and collaboration. • Integrate with third-party software applications, if desired. • Maximize your resources by making the most of customized hosting for cases of virtually any size and complexity. • Control • Reduce the volume of data you process, review and store. • Dramatically decrease investigation, analysis and collaboration costs related to managing evidence. • Trust • Count on a technology provider committed to ongoing innovation, transparent pricing and prompt, reliable support—all with a focus on delivering the best solution for your agency.

32. LexisNexis Discovery Solutions Mapped to EDRM Future Product Enhancements Concordance® Evolution (July 2012) LAW PreDiscoveryTM & Early Data Analyzer (Sept 2012) Concordance ® 10 (Sept 2012) • TimeMap® allows you to transform details from your investigation into polished visual timelines to communicate the sequence of events in a case. • Sanction® allows you to prepare evidence necessary for managing & presenting a case. • Effectively capture, organize and evaluate the relevant facts, players and issues in a case. • Develop your case strategy and compile critical case knowledge into a polished PDF report. • Filter data and eliminate duplicate, irrelevant and non-responsive files before processing and full review. • Cut e-discovery and scanned documents down to the 10 – 15% most relevant documents • Manage and review the high volume of documents. • Search, review, produce and share documents relevant to the case. Litigation Hosting - Managed Technology Services

33. The Discovery Data Funnel • Start with the complete dataset  • Cull down data at the source • Pass only the relevant data to be further refined and processed • Review data • Send important case facts, manage all of your case information and build your case strategy • Prepare case facts & evidence for presentation

34. LexisNexis® Discovery Workflow LexisNexis® Early Data Analyzer LAW PreDiscovery™ CaseMap® Concordance® LexisNexis® Sanction® PREPARE AND PRESENT YOUR NEEDLES STORE YOUR NEEDLE WITH THE OTHER KEY PIECES OF YOUR CASE REDUCE A GLOBAL POPULATION OF DATA DOWN TO A MOUNTAIN REDUCE A MOUNTAIN OF DATA TO A HAYSTACK FIND THE NEEDLE IN THE HAYSTACK Search for Smoking Guns While Protecting Privileged Data Prepare Evidence Necessary for Managing & Presenting a Case Expand and Extract Electronic Data (DVD’s, Hard Drives, Flash Dives, Etc.) to Ensure No Key Documents are Missed. Convert Native to Tiff, Number With Headers/Footers, OCR and Export for Full Review Store Key Documents, Facts and Research all in one Central Location Cull Down Unresponsive Data up to 80%

35. Contact information • James Orcutt • Solution Specialist - LAW PreDiscovery™ • eDiscovery & Litigation Management Solutions • LexisNexis 937-610-5151 (Direct) 913-314-6039 (Mobile) • http://law.lexisnexis.com/law-prediscovery

36. Wireless Access Code: 9166703926