Kroll Ontrack: RULEMAKING EFFORTS MOVE FORWARD

by MICHELE LANGE Efforts to amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took another step forward last week. On June 3, 2013, the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (“the Standing Committee”) approved a package of proposals to change several of the Federal Rules relevant to ediscovery. The package will be released to the bench and bar for a six-month public comment period on August 15, 2013. The package approved by the Standing Committee was first adopted by the Civil Rules Advisory Committee (“The Rules Committee”) during its April 2013 meeting. The package combines nearly three years of initiatives handled by the Discovery Subcommittee and the Duke Subcommittee following the Duke Litigation Review Conference in May 2010. The package contains the following: An amendment to Rule 1, addressing the issue of cooperation in discovery Amendments to Rule 16 & 26(f), including preservation considerations as a component of discovery plans and scheduling orders Amendments to Rule 26(b), adding proportionality to further define the scope of discovery Amendments to Rules 30, 31, 33 and 36, imposing or reducing numerical limits on interrogatories, oral or written depositions, and requests to admit An amendment to Rule 34, requiring greater specificity in objections to requests to produce An amendment to Rule 26(c), further clarifying the courts authority to order cost-shifting A replacement rule Rule 37(e), aiming to create a national, uniform standard for culpability with regard to spoliation sanctions Following the comment period, public hearings will be held November 7, 2013 in Washington, January 9, 2014 in Phoenix and early February 2014 in Dallas. For the full text and comments about the Rules Package, check out the May 2013 Report of the Rules Committee to the Standing Committee. Looking for more on this hot topic? Don’t miss Kroll Ontrack’s June 12th webinar, Are Your Ediscovery Practices Ready for FRCP Amendments?, hosted by state and Federal rules expert Tom Allman. Additionally, Tom wrote this article with more details on the Rules Package.

Kroll Ontrack: EDISCOVERY FOR AUDIOPHILES: NEW ESI REPORT

by JEN WIGHTMAN Ever get tired of reading about the law? Preposterous, I know, but Kroll Ontrack’s monthly podcast, the ESI Report, is back and it’s better than ever! Catch up on all current and archived podcasts here to keep a pulse on ediscovery whether you are on the road, at home or in the office. June’s episode, will feature Tom Allman, co-chair of Sedona Conference Working Group 1. Tom will capsulize the status of federal rulemaking from the rare front-line perspective of a participant. This discussion will cover new language from proposed draft Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provides context regarding where we are at in the rulemaking process and what might come next. Last month, co-blogger Eric Robinson, a Solution Architect at Kroll Ontrack, participated in a Technology Assisted Review discussion regarding the importance of evaluation metrics and math. Don’t miss May’s episode if you’re seeking to build a better understanding of key terms like Confidence Level, Precision, Recall and Accuracy. No calculator is required, but be sure to bring your ‘A game’ if you think you can top Eric’s score on the ediscovery trivia segment! In addition to the great content in the ESI Report, I’ve heard a few great episodes from CIO TalkRadio Legal. And, I keep hearing really good stuff about North Pod Law out of the UK. It sounds like a straight forward show format with the hosts and guests informally discussing the latest legal news and developments in their areas of law. I hope you check out some of these audio options. It’s nice to shake things up bit on how we ingest data in our field. And, if you have a favorite legal podcast, please drop a note in the comments!

Kroll Ontrack: FUN EDISCOVERY FACTS YOU NEVER KNEW

by MICHELE LANGE News Flash! Ediscovery is pretty fast-paced—thank goodness—lest we all end up with antiquated, unworkable rules and nothing fun to write about. Test your knowledge of the origins of ediscovery, with these fun ediscovery facts. 1) People actually communicated before social media. Believe it or not, approximately 40 years ago, the first “email” was sent. In 1972, the United States Supreme Court issued the first judicial opinion to mention email in U.S. v. Midwest Video Corp. Many litigants insist that this form of ESI is still home to troves of richly responsive evidence. Others stand on this fact to argue that hominoids actually communicated with one another before tweeting, pinning, and stringing videos together in “vines.” 2) The 1970s put the “disco” in ediscovery. In 1970, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a) was amended to make “data compilations” discoverable. In the 1972 case, Adams v. Dan River Mills, Inc., the court cited Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a) and required computer cards, tapes and printouts to be produced in discovery. 3) Judges are truly dedicated to ediscovery and seemingly immortal. In 1995, Judge Peck authored one of the first cases to officially declare that computer data is discoverable. Anti-Monopoly v. Hasbro. In 2012, Judge Peck decided Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, the first opinion requiring the use of technology –assisted review in litigation. What’s next for Judge Peck – maybe an order on the discoverability of data from a mind-reading device? 4) 2013 will be a very, very big year. By the end of 2013, there will be more ediscovery judicial opinions in this decade than in any of the previous decades combined. Here is a breakdown of ediscovery opinions by decade: a) 1970s: Less than 10 b) 1980s: Approximately 20 c) 1990s: More than 40 d) 2000s: Approximately 180 e) 2010-2012: More than 185 IF YOU ENJOYED THESE FUN-FACTS, CHECK OUT THE COMPLETE INFOGRAPHIC: “10 THINGS YOU DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT EDISCOVERY”

Kroll Ontrack: STOKING A DEAD FIRE: DA SILVA MOORE PLAINTIFFS FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

by MICHELE LANGE As reported first by Victor Li, a reporter at Law Technology News, the plaintiffs in Da Silva Moore are at it again—this time with a cert petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. In their petition, the plaintiffs contend that appellate courts should review “a judge’s determination that he is not biased under” the de novo standard (followed only by the Seventh Circuit) instead of a “deferential ‘abuse of discretion’” standard (“generally used” by every other court of appeals). If you’ve successfully forgotten what the drama is all about in this case, let me refresh your recollection: the plaintiffs’ allegations of bias stem from Judge Peck’s “extrajudicial advocacy of predictive coding” (aka: technology/computer assisted review). The plaintiffs submitted in their petition that Judge Peck has “ties to the e-discovery industry and to predictive coding vendors in particular” and has received money from teaching about the benefits of this technology. Will this case make it to the U.S. Supreme Court? Conservatively put by our friends at IT-Lex, “the percentages suggest that it’s unlikely.” In the interim, while we await the next development in this never-ending saga, perhaps we can circle back to what ediscovery is all about: securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. Related posts: Monica Bay’s recap of Judge Peck’s order refusing to recuse himself can be found here My synopsis of the Second Circuit’s opinion is here

Kroll Ontrack: BRING YOUR OWN DEVICE (BYOD) AND THE FUTURE OF EDISCOVERY

by MICHELE LANGE In an instant, your Facebook presence is transformed…instead of uploading those photos from that party last night, you click “like” on that distant family member’s baby pictures. Instead of angrily posting on that political status, you say things like, “Let’s agree to disagree” …why the sudden change? Your mom just added you as a friend. If the possibility of your mother seeing your activity can alter your social networking behavior, how will people act if the courts can access those accounts in a seemingly unrelated lawsuit? Should information that is partially shielded from public view preclude the court from compelling disclosure in litigation? For all of us, the worrying corollary is that personally owned devices that may contain information relevant to a lawsuit is also likely discoverable. In late 2012, a federal court in Colorado in E.E.O.C. v. Original Honeybaked Ham Co. of Georgia ordered production of data contained on social media sites under the control of plaintiffs in a sexual harassment suit. Perhaps more controversial than Facebook ediscovery is the discovery of data from devices that are personally owned by an employee. According to Gartner, an analyst firm, half of all employers will require employees to provide their own technology devices for work by 2017. Bring your own device (BYOD) or bring your own cloud (BYOC) policies are just two examples of future issues that will push ediscovery boundaries in coming years. Does personal ownership of a storage device or sole access to a personal storage facility on a service like SkyDrive or DropBox exclude data from the reach of electronic discovery? In Honeybaked Ham, Judge Hegarty reasoned that just as documents relevant to a civil lawsuit are subject to discovery, so also are relevant documents in cyberspace. Whether you are a CEO or a janitor, you may not only have an obligation to produce the device for copying or analysis, but also may have an obligation to preserve relevant data. As BYOD programs and the reality of BYOC become more prevalent, this is sure to be a frequent issue. For more information on this topic, tune into the July 19th ACEDS webinar, hosted by Kroll Ontrack, What Honeybaked Ham Can Teach Us About BYOD, BYOC, and the Future of Ediscovery. Presented by industry experts, Alan Brill and Chris Wall, the event is sure to be a fascinating and informative experience!

Kroll Ontrack: FUN EDISCOVERY FACTS YOU NEVER KNEW

by MICHELE LANGE News Flash! Ediscovery is pretty fast-paced—thank goodness—lest we all end up with antiquated, unworkable rules and nothing fun to write about. Test your knowledge of the origins of ediscovery, with these fun ediscovery facts. 1) People actually communicated before social media. Believe it or not, approximately 40 years ago, the first “email” was sent. In 1972, the United States Supreme Court issued the first judicial opinion to mention email in U.S. v. Midwest Video Corp. Many litigants insist that this form of ESI is still home to troves of richly responsive evidence. Others stand on this fact to argue that hominoids actually communicated with one another before tweeting, pinning, and stringing videos together in “vines.” 2) The 1970s put the “disco” in ediscovery. In 1970, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a) was amended to make “data compilations” discoverable. In the 1972 case, Adams v. Dan River Mills, Inc., the court cited Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a) and required computer cards, tapes and printouts to be produced in discovery. 3) Judges are truly dedicated to ediscovery and seemingly immortal. In 1995, Judge Peck authored one of the first cases to officially declare that computer data is discoverable. Anti-Monopoly v. Hasbro. In 2012, Judge Peck decided Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, the first opinion requiring the use of technology –assisted review in litigation. What’s next for Judge Peck – maybe an order on the discoverability of data from a mind-reading device? 4) 2013 will be a very, very big year. By the end of 2013, there will be more ediscovery judicial opinions in this decade than in any of the previous decades combined. Here is a breakdown of ediscovery opinions by decade: a) 1970s: Less than 10 b) 1980s: Approximately 20 c) 1990s: More than 40 d) 2000s: Approximately 180 e) 2010-2012: More than 185 IF YOU ENJOYED THESE FUN-FACTS, CHECK OUT THE COMPLETE INFOGRAPHIC: “10 THINGS YOU DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT EDISCOVERY”

Kroll Ontrack: MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS IN THE ERA OF EDISCOVERY

by MICHELE LANGE The slow uplift in the economy has caused a bump in mergers and acquisitions not seen in a decade, but large mergers look different today than they did ten years ago. Companies now deal with vast amounts of electronic data which must be managed and produced should the government seek documents prior to approving the deal. It is imperative that corporate counsel pay special attention to ediscovery practices now more than ever before. On this very topic, I recently authored the article “E-Merging: Mergers and acquisitions in today’s era of big data” for the Inside Counsel publication. Check out a full copy of the article here. My Inside Counsel article discusses how if a merger is in your organization’s future, tackling the organization’s treasure trove of data after the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) process has begun is an uphill battle. Merging companies must be prepared to advocate for themselves. They must aggressively negotiate electronic data protocols, including: The custodians of the data. The types of searches or key words used to sort through data. The technologies the government may use to sort through files. When a company does not know its data, that information can be used against it in a possible attempt to block the deal. To ensure the company knows its own data system, IT and legal should have detailed records of back-up tapes, scheduled data sweeps and know how to use innovative techniques to analyze the data. Whether or not a merger is on the horizon, there are several additional steps which companies can take now. These steps will not only help organize data, but also make it accessible for any future ediscovery obligation: The company should enlist a response team whose purpose is data control. The company must ensure that there is a data map of all company information which is reasonably accessible. The company must be up-to-date on audits regarding any pending litigation and necessary preservation. Of course, the company must ensure the data storage systems are useable. Companies that have taken pre-emptive steps in data management will be prepared to deal with such challenges – whether or not the organization will be e-merging any time soon.

Kroll Ontrack: BRIDGING THE GAP IN EDISCOVERY BEST PRACTICES

by ERIC ROBINSON THE EDISCOVERY BEST PRACTICE GAP Kroll Ontrack’s 2012 Year in Review suggested that the total number of cases addressing sanctions decreased while courts spent more time scrutinizing search protocols. Although sanctions were down, they certainly are not out in contemporary litigation, as counsel struggles to keep pace with rapidly emerging technologies, proliferating data volumes, and evolving ediscovery best practices. Unprepared litigators continue to fall victim to sanctions for ediscovery follies in large numbers. Spoliation case law often provides a wealth of substantive guidance and “what not to do” in ediscovery, however, most of the attention is focused on the high profile and/or buzz-worthy cases involving six-figure sanction totals and well known parties. Many “under-the-radar” cases suggest that ediscovery best practices are still evolving and are far from widespread within the contemporary legal community. This lack of standardized and/or accepted best practices identifies a significant knowledge gap between savvy litigants/ediscovery professionals and those who have yet to subject themselves to the unique challenges posed by the discovery of electronically stored information. Although one blog post won’t necessarily inoculate at-risk practitioners from sanctions for mishandling ESI, these lesser-known cases suggest that we should continue to spread the word that ediscovery duties extend throughout the case and well beyond the close of discovery. UNDERSTAND PRESERVATION AND COLLECTION OBLIGATIONS Understanding your preservation and collection obligations is critical. The Federal Rules as they stand aren’t tremendously clear on those duties, but efforts to amend the rules and clarify ediscovery obligations—or, at the very least, when those obligations are breached—are currently underway. Additionally, 2012 amendments to the ABA’s ethics rules and comments suggest that modern lawyers acclimate themselves in the evolution of the practice of law. Beyond rule changes, case law shows that courts are losing patience with attorneys – both outside and in-house counsel – that fail to meet fundamental discovery obligations. For example, in Distefano v. Law Offices of Barbara H. Katsos, PC, 2013 WL 1339548 (E.D.N.Y. March 29, 2013), the court held the defendant – an attorney – to a heightened preservation standard solely because of her profession. Specifically, the defendant replaced her computer system after her former client (the plaintiff) fired her but before they sued her for negligent representation. This prompted a motion for sanctions by the plaintiff. While the court has yet to rule on the relevancy of the records or whether they were destroyed with requisite culpability, it did note that “[it] cannot ignore the fact that [the defendant] is an attorney and should have been attuned to the prospect of litigation.” While the defendant in Distefano awaits her fate, defendants in the Northern District of Ohio were recently hit with massive sanctions. In E.E.O.C. v. Spitzer Management, Inc., 2013 WL 2250757 (N.D. Ohio May 22, 2013), the court learned, at trial, that the defendants’ lawyers had deleted fax headings from multiple documents and couldn’t immediately explain their actions when pressed. This prompted the court to order the defendants’ attorneys to produce originals of every document in the case, and many of the documents produced had been “requested but never turned over” during discovery. Ultimately, the court found the defendants’ conduct sanctionable to the tune of over $325,000—despite earlier arguments claiming that problems arose due to the complexity of the case and the number of custodians. IGNORANCE IS NOT AN EXCUSE If these cases are any indication, the message is clear, and as every first-year law student is taught, ignorance is never a defense and cannot be used as an excuse for otherwise sanctionable conduct. Attorneys of all fields must understand their duties with regard to ESI or face the wrath of unsympathetic courts.

Kroll Ontrack: THE STATE OF EDISCOVERY PRICING 2013

by MICHELE LANGE Since inception, the ediscovery market has been in a state of transformation, market evolution, constant change, or as some people think of it – legal technology chaos. On one hand, some of this chaos stems from the dynamism in the broader legal services market, to which ediscovery is a mere subset. On the other hand, some of this chaos arises from the undercurrents of the technology adoption lifecycle curve where technology visionaries “cross the chasm” as markets transition from emerging to mainstream. Whatever the reason for the bedlam – when it comes to the realities of buying and selling ediscovery services and software – corporations, law firms, and providers have become experts at dancing the pricing dance. Per page. Per gigabyte. Per hour. Per day. Per month. Flat fee. Annual subscription. Over the years, pricing challenges have arguably contributed the most fuel to the ediscovery fire. Adding another log to the fire is the fact that the goals of corporations and the goals of providers are at odds. Corporations want to produce as little data as possible, but ediscovery providers are rewarded for more data. Fundamentally, ediscovery buyers suffer two pricing pain-points – high costs and unpredictable costs. In the 2013 Ediscovery Software Magic Quadrant, research and analyst firm, Gartner, states: “Pricing transparency and simplicity remain a nonnegotiable client demand.” However, as noted in “The State of Legal Pricing 2013”, the extreme range of services and the dynamic nature of the legal market have worked against rational pricing. As a step toward that rational ediscovery pricing panacea, ediscovery buyers are increasingly taking a hard look at how to optimize their in-house expertise, ediscovery cost structure, and process efficiencies. This increased focus on cost and value drives continued evolution in ediscovery pricing structures. As an example of one ediscovery pricing development, Kroll Ontrack recently rolled out a new pricing model designed to be simple, affordable, and predictable at both the project and litigation portfolio level. Click here to read more about this new pricing model. Critics will argue that no provider in the marketplace has gone far enough to deliver the rational fee structures needed by ediscovery buyers. However, I contend that we are merely at the beginning of the transformation of ediscovery from an art to a science. As Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon.com, Inc., said, “What’s dangerous is not to evolve.”

FIVE THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW WHEN SWITCHING EDISCOVERY SOLUTIONS

by JEN WIGHTMAN When firms or corporations talk about switching ediscovery solutions in the middle of a case, it’s often for very good reasons. Perhaps it was the first project on the application and it didn’t perform as expected; perhaps you hired new litigation support staff with tons of experience and praise for a different technology (and the case has a long enough event horizon to justify the switch); or, maybe there’s a better price out there that’s just too good to ignore. Regardless of the reason why, making the switch always seems like a good idea at the outset–until it comes time to actually implement the new technology. I recently helped a non-profit organization transition between Customer Relationship Management (CRM) tools. It was striking to me the similarities between that move and a move between litigation technologies. In the process of the CRM transition, I came up with a few things to keep in mind that I think translate well to ediscovery solutions: 1) Don’t try to hide the fact that you’re moving from your current provider. In all likelihood, they already know you’re on the outs. Beyond that, it is in their best interests to keep you happy through the transition to avoid burning any bridges. Who knows, the next provider might not live up to all the hype and they will want you to come calling when they’re in the market again. Furthermore, being open about moving will keep you from asking, “Can you send me a copy of my case’s SQL DB?” There might be a scant handful of times that this will be what you need for a transition, but more often it is not. A data dump that you don’t have a map to will just add confusion to the process. 2) Understand what features in your current application are used most and why. As you look to begin the transition to new technology, work with the new provider to understand what they will need to mimic or backfill your data into their system to enable a smooth transition for those critical items. Almost universally, there are features in your current solution that you don’t use, or wouldn’t use if you did not have to. If one of these features comes up in discussions with your new provider, give them a chance to help you understand how it could be a benefit, but also don’t be afraid to decide not to implement it for your transition project. 3) Have the right people on your team talk to the new provider about mapping the data. That person should be someone on your team who not only has a good idea of the day-to-day workings of the current solution, but also understands the data that you are storing and using. Also note that you don’t have to take it all with you. Be judicious about the information you do transfer into your new solution. In some cases you are better off starting from scratch than trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. 4) Plan for the downtime. …Because there will be some downtime! Accept it and instead of trying to fight the inevitable, focus on identifying how you can shorten the process as much as possible. To bide your time, figure out if there are still tasks that can be done in the old system during the transition period. In my case, the non-profit organization continued sending out their weekly newsletter, but they needed to know that any changes to the contact information would be ‘lost’ unless they tracked it well enough to update the new system immediately when live. 5) Jump into the new system as soon as possible. Training should occur near the time you can start using the new application. No matter how great the training offered is, the knowledge gained will be lost if the trainee can’t put it to use. Finally, designate a few employees to be the new training and education people during the transition. Building up early internal knowledge of the application helps reduce support costs later and helps you evaluate and tweak the new system faster.

TOP 5 EDISCOVERY CASE SUMMARIES – AUGUST 2013 by THOUGHT LEADERSHIP TEAM

1. COURT DECLINES TO RULE ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE UNTIL PARTIES MEET AND CONFER AMEC ENV’T & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. V. GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS, INC., 2013 WL 3923459 (N.D. CAL. JULY 26, 2013). 2. COURT REFERENCES DEFENDANT’S PREVIOUS SPOLIATION IN GRANTING SANCTIONS HART V. DILLON COS., 2013 WL 3442555 (D. COLO. JULY 9, 2013). 3. NEGLIGENCE ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH FOR SPOLIATION SANCTIONS SEKISUI AM. CORP. V. HART, 2013 WL 2951924 (S.D.N.Y. JUNE 10, 2013). 4. STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT CAN BLOCK EMPLOYER ACCESS TO PERSONAL DATA ON COMPANY-ISSUED DEVICES LAZETTE V. KULMATYCKI, 2013 WL 2455937 (N.D. OHIO JUNE 5, 2013). 5. PROPORTIONALITY MUST BE CONSIDERED FOR SPOLIATION SANCTIONS PTSI, INC. V. HALEY, 2013 WL 2285109 (PA. SUPER. CT. MAY 24, 2013).

HOW TO CUT EDISCOVERY COSTS by MICHELE LANGE

In today’s world of electronically stored information (“ESI”), it is increasingly costly to preserve, identify and collect data for discovery – let alone analyze, review and create a production. According to a 2012 ediscovery costs study by the RAND institute, ediscovery expenses are adding up. For every dollar spent on ESI production, collection consumes $.08, processing consumes $.19 and document review consumes $.73. Don’t miss a new infographic created by Kroll Ontrack: 7 Tips to Cut Ediscovery Costs. DURING PRESERVATION AND COLLECTION, INVOLVE CORPORATE IT RESOURCES EARLY. On average, preservation and collection constitute about 8% of ESI production costs. The best practice for controlling collection costs: both legal and IT need to work hand-in-hand in order for ediscovery to work. To accomplish this: Involve corporate IT resources early and throughout ediscovery. Identify key players and promptly preserve their data. By working with IT, accidental deletion of data can be avoided. LIMIT EDISCOVERY PROCESSING. Ediscovery processing accounts for about 19% of ESI production costs. While processing data, be sure to keep the budget in check by monitoring volume and calibrating the budget accordingly. This can be done by: Finding a balance between using in-house resources versus external vendors and consultants. Many cases require both in-house and external resources. Limiting ediscovery processing by search terms, date range and custodians. If information is limited before review, later document review and production is simplified. DURING REVIEW AND PRODUCTION, USE MODERN TECHNOLOGY. Review is roughly 73% of all ESI costs, and has to be the most carefully monitored to conserve the budget. In Da Silva Moore, Judge Peck condoned predictive coding software to be used in conjunction with human personnel due to the sheer volume of data. Limiting the documents handed to attorneys for review by using innovative technology is a sure way to stay on target with the budget, so: Don’t review every document with traditional linear methods. This is a black hole for costs. Decide what’s not relevant and remove it with EDA or analytics. Let predictive coding do the heavy lifting: it can categorize and prioritize documents before attorneys review them. For more ediscovery presentations and infographics, visit Kroll Ontrack’s Slideshare website.

Kroll Ontrack: EDISCOVERY COLLECTIONS FOR LEFT-SIDE OF THE EDRM

by MICHELE LANGE Predictive coding is the hottest ediscovery technology today to save money and time. However, even the best Technology Assisted Review (TAR) protocol on the right-side of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) will falter if the left-side of the EDRM is ignored. From information management to preservation and collection, the early stages of the EDRM are the easiest place for mistakes to spawn an investigation, regulatory request, or litigation. For example, if your organization over-preserves, costs skyrocket for data you don’t need. If you under-collect, your organization could face penalties for missing critical documents. If you have no plans and limited technology resources, billable hours will escalate beyond imagination simply to gather and identify targeted data. Your organization needs in-house tools and procedures to empower its ediscovery collections efforts. Today’s tools are leaps above those of a decade ago. They are capable of metadata preservation and can search, recover, explore and export data from many types of data sets. One such software is Ontrack PowerControls 7.0. Ontrack PowerControls focuses on extracting data from two of the most highly used programs by companies today: Microsoft® Exchange and Microsoft® SharePoint®. Ontrack PowerControls not only ensures that IT professionals within those companies can do their job of maintaining those systems, it can also be used to copy existing content to new servers while preserving metadata using a unique migration path. Finally, Ontrack PowerControls address the legal and technical complexities associated with forensics collections. IT administrators can use it to identify, preserve and collect potentially relevant metadata from live and backup environments with minimal disruption. The data can then be exported in useable formats. We’ve come a long way from the headache-inducing early years of the left stages of the EDRM. Now, with the right tools, data extraction can even be, dare we say it, pleasant. For a deeper dive on this topic, tune in to the September 10th Kroll Ontrack webinar, EDRM: Does Your Left-Side Know What Your Right-Side is Doing? presented by industry expert, Troy Ronning.

Kroll Ontrack Named "Leader" in the Gartner EDiscovery Magic Quadrant

MINNEAPOLIS - Kroll Ontrack, the leading provider of ediscovery, information management, and data recovery products and services, on 6/13/2013 announced it has been positioned by Gartner, Inc. in the Leaders Quadrant of the 2013 Magic Quadrant for EDiscovery Software. The Magic Quadrant positions providers based on their ability to execute and completeness of vision. "It is an honor to be recognized by Gartner as an industry leader. We believe our position as a Leader in the Gartner Magic Quadrant confirms Kroll Ontrack's vision and quest to transform ediscovery into a repeatable process that gives legal teams control and predictability, and connects best-in-class competencies through partnerships," said Dean Hager, president and CEO, Kroll Ontrack. "Kroll Ontrack is well on its way to making this vision a reality through enhanced identification and collection software, leading processing and technology assisted review functionality, and corresponding project and portfolio management as well as managed document review services." "With a substantial history in leading technology, service and industry expertise, Kroll Ontrack has and continues to be a go-to player in the ediscovery space," said Member Brian Calla, Eckert Seamans. "If you haven't considered Kroll Ontrack or it's been awhile since leveraging their solutions, you should take a close look. Their strategy and corresponding technology is changing the way law firms and corporations are managing their ediscovery projects and portfolios." For a complete, downloadable copy of the 2013 Magic Quadrant for EDiscovery Software visit: http://www.krollontrack.com/ediscovery-magic-quadrant.

Kroll Ontrack transforms ediscovery pricing through the elimination of data processing and filtering fees and the introduction of reusable capacity

Three new global models to provide choice and predictability MINNEAPOLIS – Kroll Ontrack, the leading provider of ediscovery, information management, and data recovery products and services, on 7/18/2013 announced three new, market-changing pricing models to meet customer demand for more ediscovery cost flexibility, transparency and predictability. From being able to choose a la carte software and services, to bundling what is needed for one flat fee, Kroll Ontrack is pricing its suite to not only be flexible and easy to understand, but completely predictable to forge the way for a more repeatable approach to the ediscovery process. “The ediscovery industry is suffering from two things: high costs and unpredictable costs. One of the reasons these issues exist is because the goals of ediscovery providers are often at odds with a company’s needs,” said John Grancarich, vice president, product management, Kroll Ontrack. “Kroll Ontrack is changing that. Our new pricing models are designed to be simple and affordable, but more importantly predictable at both the project and portfolio level.” Kroll Ontrack’s suite of software and services is available on a per project basis or across all projects at the portfolio level. Customers no longer have to worry about data processing and filtering fees. Instead, Kroll Ontrack designed a continuum of options, including software and services a la carte pricing, bundled per gigabyte pricing, or an ediscovery portfolio subscription model. The portfolio model introduces the breakthrough concept of reusable capacity, which allows corporations and law firms with an expected level of ediscovery activity to purchase a fixed amount of ediscovery capacity, which can be reused by the customer as business needs arise. As additional projects come, ediscovery costs remain the same. “We hear from clients that they would like to use Kroll Ontrack market-leading solutions on a wider range of ediscovery projects – from the very small to large – if only Kroll Ontrack were more affordable,” added Dean Hager, president and CEO, Kroll Ontrack. “With these new pricing options, Kroll Ontrack software and services are affordable and available to a broader range of clients and projects.” “Kroll Ontrack has always been an industry leader, and by recognizing that ediscovery costs must be both affordable and more predictable, this new fee structure should not only keep them there, but help them reach new heights as well,” said Clifford Nichols, senior counsel, Day Pitney LLP. Specifically, the new buyer-centric pricing models break down as follows: 1. Portfolio Pricing: Available via monthly subscription, this first-of-its-kind pricing model is based on reusable ediscovery capacity and duration for a fixed price. Complete with a dedicated portfolio management team, this pricing approach provides more predictability and cost savings when compared to an a la carte pricing model; 2. Bundled Pricing: Available for a flat fee, bundled project pricing includes all of Kroll Ontrack’s core ediscovery services and software, so customers do not have to worry about counting or comparing line items; and 3. Individual Pricing: For customers who still want to select ediscovery services and software a la carte, the individual package empowers customers to pay for only what they need per project. “Kroll Ontrack’s simplified and affordable approach to pricing is a welcome change to the long-standing industry issues around increasing amounts of data and corresponding cost predictability,” said David Hanssens, ediscovery industry expert and partner, OC&C Strategy Consultants. “These models coupled with Kroll Ontrack’s strong technology and services make them a strong contender for projects of any size.”

Kroll Ontrack eDiscovery Workshop - DALLAS TEXAS September 19th!

Please join us for a one-day workshop that is designed exclusively for legal and technical professionals. This ediscovery session will take place at the W – Dallas on September 19 and will offer 5.5 CLE credits (inclusive of 1.0 ethics credit). This course will highlight hot topics including Technology Assisted Review, Social Media, Ediscovery Best Practices, Ethics, and The EDRM in the Era of Big Data. Reserve your spot today for this cutting edge learning experience! Space is limited. Learn more and register at: http://www.krollontrack.com/certification-courses

Kroll Ontrack Ediscovery Certification Workshop

Kroll Ontrack Ediscovery Certification Workshop.  

 Please join us for a one-day workshop that is designed exclusively for legal and technical professionals.  This ediscovery session will take place at the W – Dallas on September 19 and will offer 5.5 CLE credits (inclusive of 1.0 ethics credit).  This course will highlight hot topics including Technology Assisted Review, Social Media, Ediscovery Best Practices, Ethics, and The EDRM in the Era of Big Data.  Reserve your spot today for this cutting edge learning experience!  Space is limited.


Learn more and register at: www.krollontrack.com/certification-courses