Jason Atchley : Kroll Ontrack : MEET EDISCOVERY.COM

by MICHELE LANGE on OCTOBER 28, 2013 

Ediscovery today is in a state of chaos – teams operate on a case-by-case basis where problems multiply daily. Clearly, a transformation taking ediscovery from an art (something that is delicately handcrafted each time) to a science (something that is predictable, reliable and efficient) is needed.  I am positively giddy because that transformation has begun with ediscovery.com!

In the typical ediscovery project, there are a multitude of problems:

• It is nearly impossible to consolidate ediscovery projects in to one view to get the big-picture analysis that is needed for truly efficient projects.
• There is no streamlined way to access real time financials during ediscovery.
• There is no easy way to compare and contrast project-specific data that could be used to alter the process.

In addition, one of the largest problems in ediscovery is communication. It’s always 11th hour in ediscovery.  Does this sound familiar?

“FW: RE: RE: FW: john just stopped by my office and told me he got a voicemail that the data was ready for production!”  

If you think about it, a litigation support professional can tell hundreds of his or her Facebook friends what they ate for lunch, but communicating that ESI is ready for processing or production takes a tome of communication making War and Peace look like child’s play.

The good news – there are a few ways that these problems can be managed in the new world of ediscovery.com, which Kroll Ontrack launched today in connection with the Association of Corporate Counsel tradeshow.

• Ediscovery.com Manage allows visibility into the entire ediscovery portfolio as opposed to individual projects across any device.
• Ediscovery.com Review enables reviewers to conduct early data assessment, analysis, review and production in a single platform, giving real-time insight into massive data volumes.
• Ediscovery.com Collect reduces the time and cost of identifying, preserving and collecting ediscovery data by utilizing Ontrack PowerControls.

Ediscovery.com empowers organizations to manage ediscovery as a cohesive portfolio, not fragmented individual projects while data is kept in a single place, rather than distributing data across multiple applications and personnel. This is a huge step in the right direction for ediscovery, and it is only the beginning.

Spend some time on the new ediscovery.com site and tweet me (@MicheleCSLange) a note about what you like best!  #arttoscience

Jason Atchley : Kroll Ontrack : MAXIMIZE YOUR EDISCOVERY PORFOLIO WITH MULTI-MATTER MANAGEMENT

by ERIC ROBINSON on OCTOBER 21, 2013 

Predictive coding and other advanced technologies have changed the ediscovery landscape in a major way by offering the potential to increase efficiencies and decrease costs from collection through production. The fact that the application of these advanced technologies are gaining widespread acceptance is encouraging, and suggests that ediscovery practitioners are open (either through necessity or convenience) to embracing new ideas—especially in an era where data volumes and litigation costs are rising at a record pace.

Despite a growing inclination to embrace new ideas, many organizations and law firms still conduct their ediscovery projects with an archaic single matter transactional focus. For years, data has been collected, reviewed and produced in a vacuum, wholly disconnected from all other ediscovery/litigation or investigatory projects that would benefit from leveraging that project’s work product and data collections. For those who are serious about increasing their ediscovery efficiencies, it is time to move past the isolated redundant case-by-case approach and embrace multi-matter management.

Multi-matter management aims to reduce, reuse, and recycle past and/or existing document collections and work product by managing the entire portfolio of ediscovery projects rather than each individual project. By increasing collaboration and standardizing ediscovery and business practices to fit the portfolio management approach, there are significant gains to be made in terms of efficiency and tremendous cost savings.

THE CASE-BY-CASE APPROACH

There is no continuity from one project to the next, and the ediscovery process begins anew with each project. Specifically, note that the data from Case 1 has been collected and loaded five different times.

 Now, let’s compare that to The Portfolio Management Approach

With the portfolio management approach, the data from each case only has to be collected and uploaded once. When litigation teams communicate amongst one another, they can easily determine who collected what for each custodian, and access that data in a central repository. Doing so not only saves a vast amount of time and spares the cost of collecting core and/or repeat data, but it also provides greater insight into the case and allows the litigation team to focus on issues and timelines unique to each matter.

Multi-matter management is poised to become the next big thing for those who deal with serial litigation and repeat custodians. For more information about this emerging trend, check out eDJ’s upcoming webinar, sponsored by Kroll Ontrack.

Jason Atchley : Kroll Ontrack : DATA LOSS IN VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS

by JENNIFER DUITS on OCTOBER 8, 2013

When I joined the Kroll Ontrack Team and told my husband that I would be specializing in data recovery, one of his first comments to me was “will data loss be a thing of the past with everything moving to virtual environments?”  Now, I was new to the data recovery industry, but I am a veteran of the data storage industry.  My husband is not an expert in data storage, but does have some knowledge of it by marriage. He was very surprised by my response: “Virtual environments are not immune to data loss.”

I believe a lot of people in and out of the IT industry have the misconception that virtual environments are safe from data loss.  Per Jeff Pederson, manager of data recovery operations, Kroll Ontrack, “Virtual data loss can result from a range of causes, including file system corruption, deleted virtual machines, internal virtual disk corruption, RAID and other storage/server hardware failures, and deleted or corrupt files contained within virtualized storage systems. And, the ramifications are usually far more serious because the volume of data stored in a virtual environment is exponential to that stored on a single physical server or storage device.”

Let’s talk about virtual data loss for companies for a moment, and the statement “ramifications are usually far more serious.”  In a recent study by Kroll Ontrack*, we found that 40% of companies lose data annually from virtual environments.  So, 40% of companies surveyed, experienced downtime and some financial loss as a result of their data loss incident.  Only 33% of those companies were able to recover 100% of their data.  The other 67% of companies were only able to recover some of their data (44% recovered approximately 70% of the lost data and 23% recovered less than two-thirds of the data lost).  The bottom line is that companies are losing a lot of time, money and valuable information due to virtual data loss.

What can be done to protect against data loss?  First, create a plan of action now.  Don’t wait until data loss happens.  This will save you time and possibly more of your data when it does happen.  Find a trusted source for recoveries from virtual environments, like Kroll Ontrack.  Keep our information where it can be easily accessed.  Know the process for recovery, so you can easily communicate it to the stakeholders involved. By doing this, you will lessen the stress of the loss and relieve some of the pressure on you.  Leave the rest of the recovery up to us.

Virtual data loss happens, but it does not have to be permanent.

*Seven hundred and twenty four IT professionals participated in this survey in August 2013. Two hundred and twenty three respondents took the survey in-person at VMworld® 2013 in the U.S., while 466 from EMEA and 35 from APAC and responded to the survey online. A complete list of survey questions and results are available upon request.

Jason Atchley : Kroll Ontrack : FUN WITH SNAPCHAT SPOLIATION AND PRESERVATION

by THOUGHT LEADERSHIP TEAM on OCTOBER 7, 2013 i

Imagine an app that lets you send 10-second picture messages… and then the pictures get deleted forever. Welcome to SnapChat, the app allegedly used by Wall Street moguls for insider trading and a platform for new fashion debuts. The little app-that-could began less than two years ago. Today, SnapChat transmits over 150 million photos a day.

SnapChat may be an ingenious little program, but it perplexes ediscovery experts and general counsel: are “snaps” discoverable? Do parties have a duty to preserve snaps when they have little to no control over the “deletion” of the data? And even when snaps can be recovered, is the cost too burdensome?

The problem with SnapChat is its auto-deletion factor. To add fuel to the fire, some tech writers have suggested that these images leave metadata and are “recoverable” at a high price tag. It’s not far-fetched to imagine a scenario where a picture is relevant to a lawsuit is sent through SnapChat and “disappears.” As the argument goes, “I see a history of this image. I’m not sure how your custodian’s SnapChat app affected the image, but it’s relevant to my claim—please produce it.” How would a motion for spoliation sanctions against either the receiving or sending party play out? While I’m confident that a Snap-Chat case is brewing somewhere between the cell towers, it certainly is a testing muse—one that can support many different plausible solutions.

How could a party sending an innocuous little snap chat possibly be held accountable for the spoliation of ESI?  Imagine if the sender had intentionally sent snaps to avoid “creating” evidence. Say a spouse is having an extramarital affair and takes snaps that would prove his infidelity in divorce proceedings. Is that discoverable? Those snaps would likely fall under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), which permits discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) “regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.”  If the divorce proceedings are reasonably anticipated, the spouse could be under a duty to preserve. Moreover, if a court found that the spouse acted with sufficient culpability by choosing to send a snap instead of an MMS, for example, the spouse could be on the hook for sanctions. It’s hard to imagine that a party using SnapChat to willfully destroy evidence could take advantage of the safe harbor exception at Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e), however, it could plausibly offer relief in the right cases.

Realistically, SnapChat users typically do not intentionally, willfully, or in bad faith delete snaps – it is out of their hands. For now, it seems, compelled discovery of snaps is plausible but not practical – until the next tech wiz teaches us how to save snaps for good.

Jason Atchley : Kroll Ontrack: TOP 5 EDISCOVERY CASE SUMMARIES – OCTOBER 2013

by THOUGHT LEADERSHIP TEAM on OCTOBER 2, 2013

COURT ORDERS SANCTIONS, THREATENS ORDER TO RETAIN AN EDISCOVERY VENDOR FOR LATE AND INADEQUATE PRODUCTION
LOGTALE LTD.V. IKOR, INC., 2013 WL 3967750 (N.D. CAL. JULY 31, 2013).

CITING PROPORTIONALITY, COURT DECLINES MOTION TO COMPEL UNNECESSARY DOCUMENTS
APPLE INC. V. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO. LTD., 2013 WL 4426512 (N.D. CAL. AUG. 14, 2013).

ABSENT REQUISITE SPECIFICITY, COURT DECLINES “ULTRA-BROAD” MOTION TO COMPEL AND FORENSIC EXAMINATION
NOLA SPICE DESIGNS, LLC V. HAYDEL ENTERS., INC., 2013 WL 3974535 (E.D. LA. AUG. 2, 2013).

COURT REFUSES TO PRESUME PREJUDICE SUFFERED BY DELETION OF ESI, DENIES SANCTIONS 
HERRMANN V. RAIN LINK, INC., 2013 WL 4028759 (D. KAN. AUG. 7, 2013).

COURT ALLOWS PRESUMPTION OF PREJUDICE, OVERTURNS PREVIOUS ORDER DENYING SANCTIONS
SEKISUI AM. CORP. V. HART, 2013 WL 4116322 (S.D.N.Y. AUG. 15, 2013).

Jason Atchley : Kroll Ontrack: THE EDRM’S NEW COMPUTER ASSISTED REVIEW REFERENCE MODEL: EXPLAINED

by MICHELE LANGE on OCTOBER 3, 2013

Last month I was invited by the EDRM to take part in their webinar on the Computer Assisted Review Reference Model (CARRM). I was joined by three esteemed Technology Assisted Review experts: George Socha, EDRM, Herbert Roitblat, OrcaTec and Bob Rohlf, Exterro.

We took this chance to dive into the fascinating world that is predictive coding, also known as Technology Assisted Review (TAR), Computer Assisted Review (CAR), or intelligent review.  Predictive coding is the use of computer technologies to rank or categorize a collection of documents as responsive or not based on human review of a subset of the collection.

The talk started with a discussion of how we got to predictive coding today, and why the court’s blessing to use predictive coding in certain civil litigation cases is so important. Since the first blessing by Judge Peckin February of 2012, the number of cases using predictive coding has grown substantially. Without that blessing, it is unlikely predictive coding would still be growing.

The next question we addressed was simply “Why Predictive Coding?” The other experts and I discussed the ways predictive coding saves time and resources by finding the right documents as fast as possible, sorting and grouping documents more efficiently and validating the reviewer’s work before production.

After the opening discussion, we dove into an assortment of predictive coding topics, including the variety of technologies available and their differences, how to conduct effective predictive coding, and predictive coding workflow.

We closed the forum by discussing the best practices in ediscovery and predictive coding:

• To be efficient, you must know which questions to ask your ediscovery experts – this means doing your research.
• You need to be proactive in your firm’s ediscovery plan: create a plan and stick to it!
• Be sure to ensure quality controls so the results are respectable.
• Finally, do not be afraid to ask for help when you do not understand the process. The field is very new and growing.

For those of you who missed the webinar and would like a closer look, check out the recording of theEDRM’s New Computer Assisted Review Reference Model (CARRM)—Beyond the Test Drive and be sure to check out Kroll Ontrack’s Slideshare account for the latest presentations and infographics.

Jason Atchley : Kroll Ontrack: ONTRACK EASYRECOVERY 11: DIY FOR DATA MANAGEMENT

by JENNIFER DUITS on SEPTEMBER 24, 2013

“Ontrack EasyRecovery 11 bolsters its data recovery functionality to proactively protect against data loss and conduct secure, permanent deletion, even in virtual environments. It’s data protection, recovery and destruction in one easy-to-use solution.” – Abhik Mitra, product manager, Kroll Ontrack

I am a tried and true “do-it-yourselfer.”  On my first house, I tore down wallpaper in every room and repainted without any professional help.  When we were just thinking about kids, I wanted to do a baby room while I could do it myself.   My husband refused to refinish the original hardwood floors hidden beneath old carpet, so I took it upon myself to tear out the carpet and remove every staple.  He ended up sanding, in fear I would burn the house down, but I did the rest of the refinishing.  Why attempt projects DIY style? It saves money and you have control over the project.

Companies are looking for cost-effective data management methods where they can stay in control over their data.  Kroll Ontrack listened to their customer’s needs and expanded the functionality of EasyRecovery 11 beyond data recovery to include data loss protection through proactive monitoring and data deletion, even in virtual environments.

S.M.A.R.T. Scan for Data Protection

The truth is that computers have many of ways of letting you know that something’s not quite right or that attention is needed – you just need the right tool to capture and make sense of the information. Self-Monitoring Analysis and Reporting Technology within EasyRecovery 11 scans your drive in seconds and identifies the amount and type of data being used, the condition of sectors, and other critical hard drive metrics. When any of these metrics are out of whack, you could be at an increased risk of data loss. Armed with this information, you’re able to make informed decisions about whether to repair or replace hardware, or simply clean out hard drive space.

Permanent Data Deletion

Deleting data doesn’t necessarily mean that data is fully gone, and when you’re retiring end-of-life computers or trying to free up disk space, permanent data deletion reduces the risk of lingering digital footprints. Unlike standard data deletion that often leaves data still recoverable, Ontrack EasyRecovery 11 permanently deletes data at the file and folder level or across an entire drive at a much lower cost than other permanent erasure solutions.

DIY Data Recovery and Permanent Deletion in Virtual Environments

IT administrators and developers are increasingly utilizing virtual environments like VMware® Fusion® to run and toggle between multiple operating system platforms, generating an enormous volume of potentially critical data. Not only does EeasyRecovery 11 support data recovery in such virtual environments, but also allows IT professionals to permanently delete virtual files and folders, protecting organizations from having critical data fall into the wrong hands.”

“The expanded functionality within Ontrack EasyRecovery is a compelling story for the DIY software market,” explains Mitra. “With S.M.A.R.T. scan technology to monitor hard drive health, the ability to permanently delete data at the file/folder level, and support for data recovery and permanent data destruction in virtual environments, Ontrack EasyRecovery 11 is a full-scale solution for do-it-yourself (DIY) data recovery, protection and destruction.”

Jason Atchley : Kroll Ontrack: IOS 7 MAKES YOUR IPHONE WATERPROOF. REALLY?

by ABHIK MITRA on OCTOBER 1, 2013

Data Recovery never fails to amaze me. Just when you think you’ve seen it all, the next wave hits you. A fake Apple advert claiming the new iOS 7 software makes iPhones and iPads waterproof has apparently fooled some users into destroying their devices. While exact numbers are not known, this little creative gem of marketing circulating on social media has caused quite the stir. The ad claims that updating devices with the operating system installs a “smart switch” that cuts off the phone’s power supply when water is detected. All in all, there is no damage to the phone’s circuitry. Unfortunately, those who decided to test this little theory on newer iPhones and iPads (iOS 7 is a free upgrade to newer models), had tragic results.

All this really points to is the idea that major cause of data loss inadvertently is some sort of human error. I’ve always maintained that while technology may be getting better, there will always be a human element. In fact, Kroll Ontrack statistics indicate that 29 percent of data is lost as a result of hardware failure and 27 percent is due to human error. Other causes include software errors (7 percent), computer viruses (7 percent) and natural disasters such as floods or fires (3 percent). You need not look much further thanKroll Ontrack’s very own Top 10 list of Data Disasters if you want further proof of this.

I don’t believe we’ve seen the end of these pranks either. As tablets and smart phones continue to grow, we can expect hackers and pranksters to up their game too. Unfortunately, the user is on the receiving end of these attacks and the consequences to pertinent data can be quite severe. Luckily, there is always a second line of defense with a company like Kroll Ontrack. We’ve literally heard it all so such scenarios don’t really surprise us anymore. Know anyone who decided to test the iPhone theory out?