The $6 Million Mistake - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
Software // Information Management
Commentary
1/15/2009
05:58 PM
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

The $6 Million Mistake

A recent court ruling shows how easy -- and expensive -- it can be to screw up the e-discovery process.

A recent court ruling shows how easy -- and expensive -- it can be to screw up the e-discovery process.Attorney Ralph Losey writes a detailed analysis of a recent case that demonstrates the perils of e-discovery. I've summarized here, but check out the post for the full details.

A government agency was compelled to spend $6 million on an e-discovery exercise for a case in which it wasn't even a party. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) was subpoenaed for documents in litigation involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

While the subpoena isn't unusual, the cost associated with the search was -- $6 million, which OFHEO says was 9% of its total yearly budget!

Apparently a trial lawyer for OFHEO agreed to an e-discovery search of backup tapes to find relevant information. Unfortunately, that lawyer also agreed to let the plaintiffs define the search terms -- big mistake! At the very least, OFHEO should have demanded the right to negotiate the search terms with the plaintiffs. Otherwise, they risked having to collect a ton of material, much of which would likely prove irrelevant.

And that's just what happened. The plaintiffs came up with 400 search terms, which yielded about 660,000 documents. In addition to bearing the IT costs of having to restore and search the backup tapes, the OFHEO then had to hire 50 contract lawyers to go through all those documents to find responsive material.

OFHEO ran into delays and missed more than one court-ordered deadline to produce the relevant information. Eventually the plaintiffs asked the court to sanction OFHEO for contempt, which it did.

Naturally, OFHEO appealed the sanction, but it was upheld in a Jan. 6 ruling by Circuit Judge David S. Tatel.

I'm quite sure OFHEO didn't budget for a $6 million e-discovery bill. Unfortunately, subpoena and litigation costs aren't discretionary expenses. However, they can be contained, particularly when lawyers are knowledgeable about discovery issues, including search and the costs associated with those searches.

As I've said in other posts, it's imperative for IT and legal to work together -- ideally before a discovery order comes down the pipe.

We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
News
Think Like a Chief Innovation Officer and Get Work Done
Joao-Pierre S. Ruth, Senior Writer,  10/13/2020
Slideshows
10 Trends Accelerating Edge Computing
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  10/8/2020
News
Northwestern Mutual CIO: Riding Out the Pandemic
Jessica Davis, Senior Editor, Enterprise Apps,  10/7/2020
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Video
Current Issue
[Special Report] Edge Computing: An IT Platform for the New Enterprise
Edge computing is poised to make a major splash within the next generation of corporate IT architectures. Here's what you need to know!
Slideshows
Flash Poll