Source: https://e-discoveryteam.com/tag/science/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:25:32+00:00

Document:
There is a new case out of Chicago that advances the jurisprudence of my sub-specialty, Legal Search. City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD Inc., 2018 WL 3766673, Case 3:17-cv-50107 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 7, 2018). This discovery order was written by U.S. Magistrate Judge Iain Johnston who entitled it: “Order Establishing Production Protocol for Electronically Stored Information.” The opinion is both advanced and humorous, destined to be an oft-cited favorite for many. Thank you Judge Johnston.
Judge Johnston begins his order in City of Rockford with a famous quote by Donald Rumseld, a two-time Secretary of Defense.
United States Department of Defense News Briefing (Feb. 12, 2002).
Here the knowledge logic is spelled out in a chart, since I know we all love that sort of thing. Deconstructing Rumsfeld: Knowledge and Ignorance in the Age of Innovation (Inovo 5/114).
How do you deal with the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns, the information that we don’t even know that we don’t know about? The deep, hidden information that is both obtuse and rare. Information that is hard to retrieve and harder still to prove does not exist at all. Are you chasing something that might not exist? Something unknown because nonexistent? Such as an overlooked Highly Relevant document? (The stuff of nightmares!) Are you searching for nothing? Zero? If you find it, what does that mean? What can be known and what can never be known? Scientists, investigators and the Secretary of Defense alike all have to ponder these questions and all want to use the best tools and best people possible to do so. See: Deconstructing Rumsfeld: Knowledge and Ignorance in the Age of Innovation (Inovo 5/114).
These big questions, though interesting, are not why Judge Johnston started his opinion with the Rumseld quote. Instead, he used the quote to emphasize that new e-discovery methods, namely random sampling and statistical analysis, can empower lawyers to know what they never did before. A technical way to know the known unknowns. For instance, a way to know the number of relevant documents that will be missed and not produced: the documents that elude retrieval.
As the opinion and this blog will explain, you can do that, know that, by using an Elusion random sample of the null-set. The statistical analysis of the sample transforms the unknown quantity to a known (subject to statistical probabilities and range). It allows lawyers to know, at least within a range, the number of relevant documents that have not been found. This is a very useful quality assurance method that relies on objective measurements to demonstrate success of your project, which here is information retrieval. This and other random sampling methods allow for the calculation of Recall, meaning the percent of total relevant documents found. This is another math-based, quality assurance tool in the field of information retrieval.
It is important to overcome the fear of technology and its related jargon, which can help counsel demonstrate the reasonableness of search and production process. As Judge Johnston explains, sampling the null set is a process to determine “the known unknown,” which “is the number of the documents that will be missed and not produced.” Judge Johnson disagreed with the defendants’ argument “that searching the null set would be costly and burdensome.” The Order requires Defendants to sample their null set at a 95% +/-2% margin of error (which, even for a very large set of documents, would be about 2,400 documents to review). By taking these measures—either with TAR or with search terms, counsel can more appropriately represent that they have undertaken a “reasonable inquiry” for relevant information within the meaning of FRCP 26(g)(1).
Judge Johnston was not asked to solve the deep mysteries of knowing and not knowing in City of Rockford. The parties came to him instead with an interesting, esoteric discovery dispute. They had agreed on a great number of things, for which the court profusely congratulated them.
The attorneys are commended for this cooperation, and their clients should appreciate their efforts in this regard. The Court certainly does. The litigation so far is a solid example that zealous advocacy is not necessarily incompatible with cooperation. The current issue before the Court is an example of that advocacy and cooperation. The parties have worked to develop a protocol for the production of ESI in this case, but have now reached an impasse as to one aspect of the protocol.
The parties disagreed on whether to include a document review quality assurance test in the protocol. The Plaintiffs wanted one and the Defendants did not. Too burdensome they said.
To be specific, the Plaintiffs wanted a test where the efficacy of any parties production would be tested by use of an Elusion type of Random Sample of the documents not produced. The Defendants opposed any specific test. Instead, they wanted the discovery protocol to say that if the receiving party had concerns about the adequacy of the producing party’s efforts, then they would have a conference to address the concerns.
Judge Johnston ruled for the plaintiff in this dispute and ordered a random elusion sample to be taken after the defendant stopped work and completed production. In this case it was a good decision, but should not be routinely required in all matters.
One of the fundamental problems in any investigation is to know when you should stop the investigation because it is no longer worth the effort to carry on. When has a reasonable effort been completed? Ideally this happens after all of the important documents have already been found. At that point you should stop the effort and move on to a new project. Alternatively, perhaps you should keep on going and look for more? Should you stop or not?
The all important stop decision is a legal, statistical decision requiring a holistic approach, including metrics, sampling and over-all project assessment.You decide to stop the review after weighing a multitude of considerations. Then you test your decision with a random sample in Step Seven.
See: TAR Course: 15th Class – Step Seven – ZEN Quality Assurance Tests.
If you want to go deeper into this, then listen in on this TAR Course lecture on the Stop decision.
Once a decision is made to Stop, then a well managed document review project will use different tools and metrics to verify that the Stop decision was correct. Judge Johnston in City of Rockford used one of my favorite tools, the Elusion random sample that I teach in the e-Discovery Team TAR Course. This type of random sample is called an Elusion sample.
Judge Johnston ordered an Elusion type random sample of the null set in City of Rockford. The sample would determine the range of relevant documents that likely eluded you. These are called False Negatives. Documents presumed Irrelevant and withheld that were in fact Relevant and should have been produced. The Elusion sample is designed to give you information on the total number of Relevant documents that were likely missed, unretrieved, unreviewed and not produced or logged. The fewer the number of False Negatives the better the Recall of True Positives. The goal is to find, to retrieve, all of the Relevant ESI in the collection.
Another way to say the same thing is to say that the goal is Zero False Negatives. You do not miss a single relevant file. Every file designated Irrelevant is in fact not relevant. They are all True Negatives. That would be Total Recall: “the Truth, the Whole Truth …” But that is very rare and some error, some False Negatives, are expected in every large information retrieval project. Some relevant documents will almost always be missed, so the goal is to make the False Negatives inconsequential and keep the Elusion rate low.
Judge Johnston’s Footnote Two is interesting for two reasons. One, it attempts to calm lawyers who freak out when hearing anything having to do with math or statistics, much less information science and technology. Two, it does so with a reference to Fizbo the clown.
The Court pauses here for a moment to calm down litigators less familiar with ESI. (You know who you are.) In life, there are many things to be scared of, including, but not limited to, spiders, sharks, and clowns – definitely clowns , even Fizbo. ESI is not something to be scared of. The same is true for all the terms and jargon related to ESI. … So don’t freak out.
Although this is not addressed in the court order, in my personal view, no False Negatives, iw – overlooked documents – are acceptable when it comes to Highly Relevant documents. If even one document like that is found in the sample, one Highly Relevant Document, then the Elusion test has failed in my view. You must conclude that the Stop decision was wrong and training and document review must recommence. That is called an Accept on Zero Error test for any hot documents found. Of course my personal views on best practice here assume the use of AI ranking, and the parties in City of Rockford only used keyword search. Apparently they were not doing machine training at all.
The odds of finding False Negatives, assuming that only a few exist (very low prevalence) and the database is large, are very unlikely in a modest sized random sample. With very low prevalence of relevant ESI the test can be of limited effectiveness. That is an inherent problem with low prevalence and random sampling. That is why statistics have only limited effectiveness and should be considered part of a total quality control program. See Zero Error Numerics: ZEN. Math matters, but so too does good project management and communications.
The inherent problem with random sampling is that the only way to reduce the error interval is to increase the size of the sample. For instance, to decrease the margin of error to only 2% either way, a total error of 4%, a random sample size of around 2,400 documents is needed. Even though that narrows the error rate to 4%, there is still another error factor of the Confidence Level, here at 95%. Still, it is not worth the effort to review even more sample documents to reduce that to a 99% Level.
Random sampling has limitations in low prevalence datasets, which is typical in e-discovery, but still sampling can be very useful. Due to this rarity issue, and the care that producing parties always take to attain high Recall, any documents found in an Elusion random sample should be carefully studied to see if they are of any significance. We look very carefully at any new documents found that are of a kind not seen before. That is unusual. Typically any relevant documents found by random sample of the elusion set are of a type that have been seen before, often many, many times before. These “same old, same old” type of documents are of no importance to the investigation at this point.
Most email related datasets are filled with duplicative, low value data. It is not exactly irrelevant noise, but it is not a helpful signal either. We do not care if we get all of that kind of merely relevant data. What we really want are the Hot Docs, the high value Highly Relevant ESI, or at least Relevant and of a kind not seen before. That is why the Accept On Zero Error test is so important for Highly Relevant documents.
With key word searching (as with any retrieval process), without doubt, relevant documents will be produced, and without doubt, some relevant documents will be missed and not produced. That is a known known. The known unknown is the number of the documents that will be missed and not produced.
But there is a process by which to determine that answer, thereby making the known unknown a known known. That process is to randomly sample the nullset. Karl Schieneman & Thomas C. Gricks III, The Implications of Rule26(g) on the Use of Technology-Assisted Review, 2013 Fed. Cts. L. Rev. 239, 273 (2013)(“[S]ampling the null set will establish the number of relevant documents that are not being produced.”). Consequently, the question becomes whether sampling the null set is a reasonable inquiry under Rule 26(g) and proportional to the needs of this case under Rule 26(b)(1).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g) requires all discovery requests be signed by at least one attorney (or party, if proceeding pro se). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1). By signing the response, the attorney is certifying that to the best of counsel’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry, the disclosure is complete and correct at the time it was made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(A). But disclosure of documents need not be perfect. … If the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were previously only translucent on this point, it should now be clear with the renewed emphasis on proportionality.
Judge Johnston concludes that Rule 26(g) on certification applies to require the Elusion sample in this case.
Just as it is used in TAR, a random sample of the null set provides validation and quality assurance of the document production when performing key word searches. Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck made this point nearly a decade ago. See William A. Gross Constr. Assocs., 256 F.R.D. at 135-6 (citing Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 251, 262 (D. Md. 2008)); In re Seroquel Products Liability Litig., 244 F.R.D. 650, 662 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (requiring quality assurance).
Accordingly, because a random sample of the null set will help validate the document production in this case, the process is reasonable under Rule 26(g).
The Court adopts the parties’ proposed order establishing the production protocol for ESI with the inclusion of Plaintiffs’ proposal that a random sample of the null set will occur after the production and that any responsive documents found as a result of that process will be produced. Moreover, following that production, the parties should discuss what additional actions, if any, should occur. If the parties cannot agree at that point, they can raise the issue with the Court.
The City of Rockford holding could persuade other judges and encourage courts to be more active and impose specific document review procedures on all parties, including requiring the use of sampling and artificial intelligence. The producing party cannot always have a free pass under Sedona Principle Six. Testing and sampling may well be routinely ordered in all “large” document review cases in the future.
It will be very interesting to watch how other attorneys argue City of Rockford. It will continue a line of cases examining methodology and procedures in document review. See eg., William A. Gross Construction Associates, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co., 256 F.R.D. 134 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“wake-up call” for lawyers on keyword search); Winfield v. City of New York (SDNY, Nov. 27, 2017), where Judge Andrew Peck considers methodologies and quality controls of the active machine learning process. Also see Special Master Maura Grossman’s Order Regarding Search Methodology for ESI, a validation Protocol for the Broiler Chicken antitrust cases.
There may come a time when TAR is so widely used that it might be unreasonable for a party to decline to use TAR. We are not there yet.
Like a kid in the backseat of the car, I cannot help but ask, are we there yet? Hyles was published over two years ago now. Maybe some court, somewhere in the world, has already ordered a party to do predictive coding against their will, but not to our knowledge. That is a known unknown. Still, we are closer to “There” with the City of Rockford’s requirement of an Elusion test.
When we get “there,” and TAR is finally ordered in a case, it will probably arise in a situation like City of Rockford where a joint protocol applicable to all parties is involved. That is easier to sell than a one-sided protocol. The court is likely to justify the order by Rule 26(g), and hold that it requires all parties in the case to use predictive coding. Otherwise, they will not meet the reasonable effort burdens of Rule 26(g). Other rules will be cited too, of course, including Rule 1, but Rule 26(g) is likley to be key.
One of the largest cases in the U.S. today is a consolidated group of price-fixing cases in District Court in Chicago. In Re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, 290 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (order denying motions to dismiss and discussing the case). The consolidated antitrust cases involve allegations of a wide spread chicken price-fixing. Big Food Versus Big Chicken: Lawsuits Allege Processors Conspired To Fix Bird Prices (NPR 2/6/18).
The level of sales and potential damages are high. For instance, in 2014 the sales of broiler chickens in the U.S. was $32.7 Billion. That’s sales for one year. The classes have not been certified yet, but discovery is underway in the consolidated cases.
The Broiler Chicken case is not only big money, but big e-discovery. A Special Master (Maura Grossman) was appointed months ago and she developed a unique e-discovery validation protocol order for the case. See: TAR for Smart Chickens, by John Tredennick and Jeremy Pickens that analyzes the validation protocol.
Maura was not involved in the latest discovery dispute where, Agri Stats, one of many defendants, claimed a request for production was too burdensome as to it. The latest problem went straight to the presiding Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert who issued his order on July 26, 2018. In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig., 2018 WL 3586183 (N.D. Ill. 7/26/18).
Agri Stats had moved for a protective order to limit an email production request. Agri Stats claimed that the burden imposed was not proportional because it would be too expensive. Its lawyers told Judge Gilbert that it would cost between $1,200,000 and $1,700,00 to review the email using the keywords negotiated.
I assume that there were hearings and attorney conferences before the hearings. But I do not know that for sure. I have not seen a transcript of the hearings with Judge Gilbert. All we know is that defense counsel told the judge that under the keywords selected the document review would cost between $1,200,000 and $1,700,000, and that they had no explanation on how the cost estimate was prepared, nor any specifics as to what it covered. Although I was not there, after four decades of doing this sort of work, I have a pretty good idea of what was or might have been said at the hearing.
Well, Judge Gilbert’s short opinion makes it seem that way. In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig., 2018 WL 3586183 (N.D. Ill. 7/26/18).
If a Q&A interchange like this happened, either in a phone hearing, or in person, then the lawyers must have said something. You do not just ignore a question by a federal judge. The defense attorneys probably did a little hemming and hawing, conferred among themselves, and then said something to the judge like: “We are not sure how those numbers were derived, $1.2M to $1.5M, and will have to get back to you on that question, Your Honor.” And then, they never did. I have seen this kind of thing a few times before. We all try to avoid it. But it is even worse to make up a false story, or even present an unverified story to the judge. Better to say nothing and get back to the judge with accurate information.
Agri Stats represents that the estimated cost to run the custodial searches EUCPs propose and to review and produce the ESI is approximately $1.2 to $1.7 million. This estimated cost, however, is not itemized nor broken down for the Court to understand how it was calculated. For example, is it $1.2 to $1.7 million to review all the custodial documents from 2007 through 2016? Or does this estimate isolate only the pre-October 2012 custodial searches that Agri Stats does not want to have to redo, in its words? More importantly, Agri Stats also admits that this estimate is based on EUCPs’ original proposed list of search terms. But EUCPs represent (and Agri Stats does not disagree) that during their apparently ongoing discussions, EUCPs have proposed to relieve Agri Stats of the obligation to produce various categories of documents and data, and to revise the search terms to be applied to data that is subject to search. Agri Stats does not appear to have provided a revised cost estimate since EUCPs agreed to exclude certain categories of documents and information and revised their search terms. Rather, Agri Stats takes the position that custodial searches before October 3, 2012 are not proportional to the needs of the case — full stop — so it apparently has not fully analyzed the cost impact of EUCPs’ revised search terms or narrowed document and data categories.
The Court wonders what the cost estimate is now after EUCPs have proposed to narrow the scope of what they are asking Agri Stats to do. (emphasis added) EUCPs say they already have agreed, or are working towards agreement, that 2.5 million documents might be excluded from Agri Stats’s review. That leaves approximately 520,000 documents that remain to be reviewed. In addition, EUCPs say they have provided to Agri Stats revised search terms, but Agri Stats has not responded. Agri Stats says nothing about this in its reply memorandum.
EUCPs contend that Agri Stats’s claims of burden and cost are vastly overstated. The Court tends to agree with EUCPs on this record. It is not clear what it would cost in either time or money to review and produce the custodial ESI now being sought by EUCPs for the entire discovery period set forth in the ESI Protocol or even for the pre-October 3, 2102 period. It seems that Agri Stats itself also does not know for sure what it would have to do and how much it would cost because the parties have not finished that discussion. Because EUCPs say they are continuing to work with Agri Stats to reduce what it must do to comply with their discovery requests, the incremental burden on what Agri Stats now is being asked to do is not clear.
For all these reasons, Agri Stats falls woefully short of satisfying its obligation to show that the information [*10] EUCPs are seeking is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.
In order to obtain a protective order you need to estimate the costs that will likely be involved in the discovery from which you seek protection. Simple. Moreover, it obviously has to be a reasonable estimate, a good faith estimate, supported by the facts. The Brolier Chicken defendant, Agri Stats, came up with an estimate. They got that part right. But then they stopped. You never do that. You do not just throw up a number and hope for the best. You have to explain how it was derived. Blushing at any price higher than that is not a reasonable explanation, but is often honest.
Be ready to explain how you came up with the cost estimate. To break down the total into its component parts and allow the “Court to understand how it was calculated.” Agri Stats did not do that. Instead, they just used a cost estimate of between $1.2 to $1.7 million. So of course Agri Stats’ motion for protective order was denied. The judge had no choice because no evidence to support the motion was presented, neither factual or expert evidence. There was no need for Judge Gilbert to go into the secondary questions of whether expert testimony was also needed and whether it should be under Rule 702. He got nothing remember. No explanation for the $1.7 Million.
The lesson of the latest discovery order in Broiler Chicken is pretty simple. In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig., 2018 WL 3586183 (N.D. Ill. 7/26/18). Get a real cost estimate from an expert. The expert needs to know and understand document review, search and costs of review. They need to know how to make reasonable search and retrieval efforts. They also need to know how to make reliable estimates. You may need two experts for this, as not all have expertise in both fields, but they are readily available. Many can even talk pretty well too, but not all! Seriously, everybody knows we are the most fun and interesting lawyer subgroup.
The last thing to do is skimp on an expert and just pull out a number from your hat (or your vendor’s hat) and hope for the best.
This is federal court, not a political rally. You do not make bald assertions and leave the court wondering. Facts matter. Back of the envelope type guesses are not sufficient, especially in a big case like Broiler Chicken. Neither are guesstimates by people who do not know what they are doing. Make disclosure and cooperate with the requesting party to reach agreement. Do not just rush to the courthouse hoping to dazzle with smoke and mirrors. Bring in the experts. They may not dazzle, but they can get you beyond the magic mirrors.
Judge Paul S. Grewal, who is now Deputy G.C. of Facebook, said quoting The Sedona Conference in Vasudevan: “There is no magic to the science of search and retrieval: only mathematics, linguistics, and hard work.” Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Microstrategy Inc., No. 11-cv-06637-RS-PSG, 2012 US Dist LEXIS 163654 (ND Cal Nov 15, 2012) (quoting The Sedona Conference, Best Practices Commentary on the Use of Search and Information and Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery, 8 Sedona Conf. J. 189, 208 (2007). There is also no magic to the art of estimation, no magic to calculating the likely range of cost to search and retrieve the documents requested. Judge Grewal refused to make any decision in Vasudevan without expert assistance, recognizing that this area is “fraught with traps for the unwary” and should not be decided on mere arguments of counsel.
Judge Grewal did not address the procedural issue of whether Rule 702 should govern. But he did cite to Judge Facciola’s case on the subject, United States v. O’Keefe, 537 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2008). Here Judge Facciola first raised the discovery expert evidence issue. He not only opined that experts should be used, but that the parties should follow the formalities of Evidence Rule 702. That governs things such as whether you should qualify and swear in an expert and follow otherwise follow Rule 702 on their testimony. I discussed this somewhat in my earlier article this year, Judge Goes Where Angels Fear To Tread: Tells the Parties What Keyword Searches to Use.
Judge Facciola in O’Keffe held that document review issues require expert input and that this input should be provided with all of the protections provided by Evidence Rule 702.
Given this complexity, for lawyers and judges to dare opine that a certain search term or terms would be more likely to produce information than the terms that were used is truly to go where angels fear to tread. This topic is clearly beyond the ken of a layman and requires that any such conclusion be based on evidence that, for example, meets the criteria of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Accordingly, if defendants are going to contend that the search terms used by the government were insufficient, they will have to specifically so contend in a motion to compel and their contention must be based on evidence that meets the requirements of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
In the Boiler Chicken Antitrust Order of July 27, 2018, a motion for protective order was denied because of inadequate evidence of burden. All the responding party did was quote a price-range, a number presumably provided by an expert, but there was no explanation. More evidence was needed, both expert and fact. I agree that generally document review cost estimation requires opinions of experts. The experts need to be proficient in two fields. They need to know and understand the science of document search and retrieval and the likely costs for these services for a particular set of data.
Although all of the formalities and expense of compliance with Evidence Rule 702 may be needed in some cases, it is probably not necessary in most. Just bring your expert to the attorney conference or hearing. Yes, two experts may well disagree on some things, probably will, but the areas of agreement are usually far more important. That in turn makes compromise and negotiation far easier. Better leave the technical details to the experts to sort out. That follows the Rule 1 prime directive of “just, speedy and inexpensive.” Keep the trial lawyers out of it. They should instead focus and argue on what the documents mean.
As noted above, defendants protest the search terms the government used. Whether search terms or “keywords” will yield the information sought is a complicated question involving the interplay, at least, of the sciences of computer technology, statistics and linguistics. See George L. Paul & Jason R. Baron, Information Inflation: Can the Legal System Adapt?; 13 Ricn. J.L. & TECH. 10 (2007). Indeed, a special project team of the Working Group on Electronic Discovery of the Sedona Conference is studying that subject and their work indicates how difficult this question is. See The Sedona Conference, Best Practices Commentary on the Use of Search and Information Retrieval, 8 THE SEDONA CONF. J. 189 (2008).
Unfortunately, despite being a topic fraught with traps for the unwary, the parties invite the court to enter this morass of search terms and discovery requests with little more than their arguments.
The defendants have not provided the necessary expert opinions for me to assess their motion to compel search terms. The application is therefore denied. This leaves the defendants with three options: “They can cooperate [with the plaintiffs] (along with their technical consultants) and attempt to agree on an appropriate set of search criteria. They can refile a motion to compel, supported by expert testimony. Or, they can request the appointment of a neutral consultant who will design a search strategy.” Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. v. UBS Real Estate Securities Inc., No. 12 Civ. 1579, 2012 WL 5927379, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2012).
I am inclined to agree with Judge Francis. I know from daily experience that legal search, even keyword search, can be very tricky, depends on many factors, including the documents searched. I have spent over a decade working hard to develop expertise in this area. I know that the appropriate searches to be run depends on experience and scientific, technical knowledge on information retrieval and statistics. It also depends on tests of proposed keywords; it depends on sampling and document reviews; it depends on getting your hands dirty in the digital mud of the actual ESI. It cannot be done effectively in the blind, no matter what your level of expertise. It is an iterative process of trial and errors, false positives and negatives alike.
Recently appointed U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing in Albuquerque, New Mexico, heard a case involving a dispute over keywords. United States v. New Mexico State University, No. 1:16-cv-00911-JAP-LF, 2017 WL 4386358 (D.N.M. Sept. 29, 2017). It looks like the attorneys in the case neglected to inform Judge Fashing of United States v. O’Keefe. It is a landmark case in this field, yet was not cited in Judge Fashing’s order. More importantly, Judge Fashing did not take the advice of O’Keefe, nor the many cases that follow it. Unlike Judge Facciola and his angels, she told the parties what keywords to use, even without input from experts.
This case presents the question of how parties should search and produce electronically stored information (“ESI”) in response to discovery requests. “[T]he best solution in the entire area of electronic discovery is cooperation among counsel.” William A. Gross Const. Assocs., Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 256 F.R.D. 134, 135 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Cooperation prevents lawyers designing keyword searches “in the dark, by the seat of the pants,” without adequate discussion with each other to determine which words would yield the most responsive results. Id.
While keyword searches have long been recognized as appropriate and helpful for ESI search and retrieval, there are well-known limitations and risks associated with them, and proper selection and implementation obviously involves technical, if not scientific knowledge.
Selection of the appropriate search and information retrieval technique requires careful advance planning by persons qualified to design effective search methodology. The implementation of the methodology selected should be tested for quality assurance; and the party selecting the methodology must be prepared to explain the rationale for the method chosen to the court, demonstrate that it is appropriate for the task, and show that it was properly implemented.
Id. (quoting Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 251, 260, 262 (D. Md. May 29, 2008)).
Although NMSU has performed several searches and produced thousands of documents, counsel for NMSU did not adequately confer with the United States before performing the searches, which resulted in searches that were inadequate to reveal all responsive documents. As the government points out, “NMSU alone is responsible for its illogical choices in constructing searches.” Doc. 117-1 at 8. Consequently, which searches will be conducted is left to the Court.
Judge Laura Fashing had me in the quote above until the final sentence. Up till then she had been wisely following the four great judges in this area, Facciola, Peck, Francis and Grimm. Then in the next several paragraphs she rushes in to specify what search terms should be used for what categories of ESI requested. Why should the Court go ahead and do that without expert advice? Why not wait? Especially since Judge Fashing starts her opinion by recognizing the difficulty of the task, that “there are well-known limitations and risks associated with them [keyword searches], and proper selection and implementation obviously involves technical, if not scientific knowledge.” Knowing that, why was she fearless? Why did she ignore Judge Facciola’s advice? Why did she make multiple detailed, technical decisions on legal search, including specific keywords to be used, without the benefit of expert testimony? Was that foolish as several judges have suggested, or was she just doing her job by making the decisions that the parties asked her to make?
Judge Fashing recognized that she did have enough facts to make a decision, much less expert opinions based on technical, scientific knowledge, but she went ahead and ruled anyway.
Although NMSU argues that the search terms proposed by the government will return a greater number of non-responsive documents than responsive documents, this is not a particular and specific demonstration of fact, but is, instead, a conclusory argument by counsel. See Velasquez, 229 F.R.D. at 200. NMSU’s motion for a protective order with regard to RFP No. 8 is DENIED.
NMSU will perform a search of the email addresses of all individuals involved in salary-setting for Ms. Harkins and her comparators, including Kathy Agnew and Dorothy Anderson, to include the search terms “Meaghan,” “Harkins,” “Gregory,” or “Fister” for the time period of 2007-2012. If this search results in voluminous documents that are non-responsive, NMSU may further search the results by including terms such as “cross-country,” “track,” “coach,” “salary,” “pay,” “contract,” or “applicants,” or other appropriate terms such as “compensation,” which may reduce the results to those communications most likely relevant to this case, and which would not encompass every “Meaghan” or “Gregory” in the system. However, the Court will require NMSU to work with the USA to design an appropriate search if it seeks to narrow the search beyond the four search terms requested by the United States.
NMSU will conduct searches of the OIE databases, OIE employee’s email accounts, and the email accounts of all head coaches, sport administrators, HR liaisons working within the Athletics Department, assistant or associate Athletic Directors, and/or Athletic Directors employed by NMSU between 2007 and the present. The USA suggests that NMSU conduct a search for terms that are functionally equivalent to a search for (pay or compensate! or salary) and (discriminat! or fair! or unfair!). Doc. 117-1 at 13. If NMSU cannot search with “Boolean” connectors as suggested, it must search for the terms “pay” or “compensate” or “salary” and “discriminate” or “fair” or “unfair” and the various derivatives of these terms (for example the search would include “compensate” and “compensation”). The parties are to work together to determine what terms will be used to search these databases and email accounts.
William A. Gross Const. Assocs., Inc., 256 F.R.D. at 136.
Of course I agree with Judge Fashing’s concluding reminder to the parties. Cooperation is key, but so is expertise. There is a good reason for the fear felt by Facciola’s angels. They wisely knew that they lacked the necessary technical, scientific knowledge for the proper selection and implementation of keyword searches. I only wish that Judge Fashing’s order had reminded the parties of this need for experts too. It would have made her job much easier and also helped the parties. Sometimes the wisest thing to do is nothing, at least not until you have more information.
There is widespread agreement among legal search experts on such simplistic methods as keyword search. They would have helped. The same holds true on advanced search methods, such as active machine learning (predictive coding), at least among the elite. See TARcourse.com. There is still some disagreement on TAR methods, especially when you include the many pseudo experts out there. But even they can usually agree on keyword search methods.
Cooperation with the other side and their technical consultants to attempt to agree on an appropriate set of search criteria.
Motions supported by expert testimony and facts regarding the search.
Appointment of a neutral consultant who will design a search strategy.
Going it alone with legal search in a complex case is a fool’s errand. Bring in an expert. Spend a little to save a lot. It is not only the smart thing to do, it is also required by ethics. Rule 1.1: Competence, Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The ABA Comment two to Rule 1.1 states that “Competent representation can also be provided through the association of a lawyer of established competence in the field in question.” Yet, in my experience, this is seldom done and is not something that clients are clamoring for. That should change, and quickly, if we are ever to stop wasting so much time and money on simplistic e-discovery arguments. I am again reminded of the great Alexander Pope (1688–1744) and another of his famous lines from An Essay on Criticism.
After I wrote this blog I did a webinar for ACEDS about this topic. Here is a one-hour talk to add to your personal Pierian spring.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.