Inventus » News & Notes

Near-Dupe technology could have prevented Google’s Billion Dollar Blunder

rod_roberson — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:41:15 +0000

There have been several articles about Google’s “Billion Dollar e-Discovery Blunder” View Law.com’s here.

Oracle sued Google because the Google Android smartphone allegedly infringes on Oracle’s patents related to their Java programming language. The following email was sent at 11:05 am on August 6, 2010.

___________
Attorney Work Product
Google Confidential

Hi Andy,
This is a short pre-read for the call at 12:30. In Dan’s earlier we didn’t give you a lot of context, looking for a visceral reaction that we got.

What we’ve actually been asked to do (by Larry and Sergei) is to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome. We’ve been over a bunch of these, that think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need.

That said, Alan Eustace said that the threat of moving off Java hit Safra Katz hard. We think there is a value in the negotiations to put forward our most credible alternative, the goal being to get better terms and price for Java.

It looks to us that Obj-C provides that most credible alternative in this context, which should not be confused with us thinking we should make the change. What we’re looking for from you is the reasons why you hate this idea, whether you think there’s anything we’ve missed in our understanding of the option.

-Tim and Dan
____________

Google withheld the last draft and the “sent” version of the email as privileged and listed them on its privilege log. Unfortunately, eight additional drafts were auto-saved on the drafter’s computer BEFORE he added the “Work Product” and the “Confidential” labels. Those drafts were produced to Oracle and later held not to be privileged as work product or an attorney-client communication.

This situation could have easily been avoided by the use of near-duplicate clustering that would have flagged the additional copies that were missed.Inventus uses Equivio’s near-dupe technologies to measure the data points of the document so that even if the documents contained odd words, misspellings, or other oddities, their scores would be extremely high indicating they are near duplicates and should therefore be similarly coded and not produced to opposing counsel. For more information regarding Oracle v. Google, see Craig Ball’s Blog at http://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/439/#more-439

Discovery Subcommittee Reaches No Consensus on Preservation Issues

rod_roberson — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:45:21 +0000

David J. Kessler and Emily Johnston from Fulbright & Jaworksi, L.L.P.’s e-Discovery and Information Governance practice have posted an article on Fulbright’s website about the Subcommittee’s recent Mini-Conference on perservation held on September 9, 2011. Ms. Johnston attended the conference as an observer and reports that the group met to discuss the possibility of FRCP rule changes to address preservation issues. While the article concludes that the meeting ended without any general consensus, it does provide good insight into particular judges’ views on the subject. Read the full article here.

Gartner Publishes Magic Quadrant for E-Discovery Software

rod_roberson — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:15:41 +0000

Gartner has published the 2011 Magic Quadrant for E-Discovery Software, its first Magic Quadrant report for the E-Discovery software space. The report analyzes 24 different E-Discovery vendors and categorizes them in a chart showing the industry leaders, visionaries, challengers, and niche players, as well as, their “ability to execute” and their “completeness of vision.” kCura (Relativity) and Clearwell were both placed in the “Leaders” quadrant.

E-Discovery Attains Mainstream Media Coverage

rod_roberson — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:39:36 +0000

A recent New York Times article highlights the efficiencies and insights gained with review by e-discovery software such as our partner, Clearwell. The article states that computers are becoming better at mimicking human reasoning in general and that they already bring to light key insights referred to as “digital anomalies” or potential evidence of wrongdoing. To read the entire article which includes a breakdown of the linguistic and sociological categories of advanced search, click here.

7th Circuit Court Orders E-Discovery Homework

rod_roberson — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:10:01 +0000

A recent case out of the Northern District of Illinois ordered not only a phased approach to discovery, but for the parties involved to do some homework as well. The parties were expected to be up to speed on both the Seventh Circuit’s Electronic Discovery Pilot Program’s Principles, as well as, the Sedona Conference’s Cooperation Proclamation. And while the Pilot Program is the work of the Seventh Circuit, many judges across the country will continue to keep a close eye on its progress in determining how to navigate through their own e-discovery issues.

With Inventus’ operational headquarters based in Chicago, our litigation consultants are routinely engaged in matters being guided by the principles set out by the Seventh Circuit and the Sedona Conference.

A copy of the Seventh Circuit case (Tamburo v. Dworkin) can be found here.

Craig Ball Supports Native-Only Reviews and Productions in LTN

rod_roberson — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:54:00 +0000

E-Discovery expert, Craig Ball recently published an article in Law Technology News supporting almost exclusive use of native document format for both review and production. A commonly held belief we frequently hear at Inventus is that TIFF or page-level production format necessary for future use in depositions and therefore entire productions must be delivered in TIFF format. A cost-efficient alternative, however, is to TIFF only files designated for use in depositions and to do so subsequent to production. Because the number of documents actually used for depositions is miniscule when compared to the entirety of a production, this alternative is both time- and money-saving for our clients.

For even more compelling reasons to consider native-only productions, Mr. Ball’s article can be found here.

Courts Accept a Phased Discovery Approach

rod_roberson — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:18:00 +0000

A phased approach to discovery is both a reasonable and proportional method to obtain relevant electronic information. There is a growing number of opinions espousing this notion, one of which is Haka v. Lincoln County stemming from the Western District of Wisconsin. In this case, the court ordered a phased approach to discovery as well as cost sharing when it found that the cost of search of all the data was disproportionate to recovery. Inventus’ Discovery Solutions team focuses on helping its clients draft collection, search and review protocols which reflect these principles of reasonableness and proportionality.

Preparing for the Rule 26(f) Conference

rod_roberson — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:40:31 +0000

Every organization’s approach to data is different and understanding a client’s IT infrastructure, data storage practices and back up policies are just a few important factors which counsel must be versed in before attending a FRCP 26(f) conference. Guidelines for this mandated “meet and confer” can be found in numerous resources including the initial report of the 7^th Circuit Electronic Discovery Pilot Program. This document emphasizes early preparation for the Rule 26(f) conference with special focus on data preservation, identification and production format. Read the report here.

EDRM Posts ESI Production Guide

rod_roberson — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:34:05 +0000

In the already disputatious arena of e-discovery, form of production may be one of the most hotly debated topics. Litigants fall into two general schools of thought: TIFF it all or provide native files. There are plenty of reasons cited in support of each format ranging from attorney preference to cost efficiency, but (for federal cases anyway) it is FRCP 34 which ultimately governs.

For a thorough analysis on this topic and the Federal Rules which guide it, please visit the EDRM resource found here: http://edrm.net/resources/guides/edrm-framework-guides/production.

Sedona Publishes Proportionality Commentary

rod_roberson — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:12:48 +0000

The Sedona Conference has published its, “Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Discovery.” The paper includes six principles of proportionality that practicioners should reference when working through the discovery of ESI.

Principle No. 6 advises: Technologies to reduce cost and burden should be considered in the proportionality analysis. In the commentary to this principle, the paper notes that technology continues to change rapidly and keeping abreast of these changes can be challenging. The paper continues to advise that, ”counsel should remain current in the advancements or engage experts as needed to ensure they take advantage of best practices.”

Download the full paper at Sedona’s website here.