äáíáÖ~íáçå=ã~å~ÖÉãÉåíW=mìííáåÖ=çå=íÜÉ=êáíw==

PANEL DISCUSSION: INNOVATIVE LITIGATION

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Moderator: HUGH GOTTSCHALK

Wheeler Trigg Kennedy

- 173 -

4/22/2008

1

Innovative Litigation Management Strategies

Hugh Gottschalk and Mike BaumelWheeler Trigg Kennedy

Craig Zahnd David Perry David McLennanSwiss Re CNA Insurance Sierra Wireless

Early Case Assessment/Resolution

Mandate ECA in ALL new matters (w/in 90 days)

Things must consider:

“Most Likely”: DV %, Apportionment %, & VR

Know what assumptions were madeKnow what assumptions were made

If ECR potential identified, RT with team/panel

“Make the call” early to either attempt ECR or prepare for trial

Watch for potential pitfalls

Alternative Fee AgreementsTypes:

One offs, Portfolio & “Parachute” dealsCombine elements creatively (e.g. flat/capped fees

and then performance-based)

H t S dHow to Succeed:Reserve for relationships built on trust & partnershipMeasurements must be truly objective & valuedWatch for “competing” interests

- 175 -

4/22/2008

2

E-Discovery: Counsel’s New “Obligations”

Be aware of the new Federal Rules

Become familiar with client’s computer systems &preservation activities before conference

Be active in preservation

Review/approve the “hold” notice

Review recipient list

Send separate notice to IT personnel

Be active in compliance with ongoing discovery obligations

Class Action Risk ManagementAvoiding Class Action Suits

Disclosure, Disclosure, DisclosureBe careful with acquisitionsStay up-to-date on litigation landscapeActions will be judged in hindsight – conduct yourself accordingly

Managing Class Action SuitsSelect Class Action Counsel earlyOrganize internally to efficiently feed Counsel with

necessary factsManage D&O carrier – leverage your broker where you canAssess the risk and be practical about how to resolve itBe quick to institute corrective measures recommended by

Counsel

Outside Counsel Selection Specialization & Expertise

By product (Pharma, vehicles, devices, etc.)By injury (brain injury, asbestos, etc.)By damages (SNT, LCPs, annuities, etc.)

Knowledge of client’s businessE t di t i l killExtraordinary trial skillsWinning attitude, consultative, and not “defeatist”… but

doesn’t “oversell” the caseFirm have succession plan?Client “hiring practices”

- 176 -

4/22/2008

3

Outside Counsel Management“Manage” via:

DCRs and PTRsRoundtablesDaily trial reports

“M i ” i“Measuring” via:Results - verdicts/settlements under reserveAuditsTimelinessData in Electronic Billing Systems

- 177 -

Sample Resources on ESI 

The Federal Rules 

Judicial Committee Reports on December 2006 ESI Amendments 

 

http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/Reports/ST09-2005.pdf The link shown here is a valuable “judicial history” that provides in‐depth information about the analyses that led to 

the various ESI provisions in the new federal rules.  These pages provide far more insight into the new rules than do 

the more concise Committee Notes.  For example, the discussion of technical and substantive challenges presented 

by production of data in native file format provides helpful authority for opposition to such form of production in 

the normal course. 

State Courts and Electronic Discovery 

Guidelines by the Conference of Chief Justices 

 

http://www.ncsconline.org/images/EDiscCCJGuidelinesFinal.pdf

The state court Conference of Chief Justices published guidelines in August 2006 in anticipation of the Federal Rules 

amendments.  The guidelines provide some insight regarding the complexities and costs associated with electronic 

discovery and highlight the expectation that in‐house and outside counsel will become knowledgeable about 

and will be responsible for the conduct of electronic discovery from the beginning of the litigation.  Current 

summaries of individual state court rules are set out at 

https://www.lexisnexis.com/applieddiscovery/LawLibrary/StateCourt.asp

- 178 -

Checklist of Electronic Discovery Issues, With Emphasis on Early Action 

 

Attached to this summary are working checklists that identify, at a middle‐to‐high‐level view, electronic discovery 

issues and facts to be addressed.  Two important focuses are (i) custodian files and (ii)  corporate data files  or 

databases, each requiring distinct attention. 

Sample Web Links of Interest 

 

http://www.thesedonaconference.or/ 

Although not the only “word” in the arena of electronic discovery, the Sedona Conference is highly influential and 

has published several valuable “best practices”, some of which are identified here. 

 

http://www.thesedonaconference.org/content/miscFiles/TSC_PRINCP_2nd_ed_607.pdf 

http://www.thesedonaconference.org/content/miscFiles/Best_Practices_Retrieval_Methods___revised_cover_and_preface.pdf 

 

http://www.thesedonaconference.org/dltForm?did=tsglossarymay05.pdf 

- 179 -

WHEELER TRIGG KENNEDY LLP

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION WITH CLIENT CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

1

ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY

A CHECKLIST—WITH EMPHASIS ON EARLY REQUIRED ACTION

I. EARLY FOCUS WITHIN COMPANY

A. Substantive Preservation Obligation

1. Scope of Preservation (Scope of Litigation-Hold Notice)

a. What

i. Subjects / Topics

ii. Servers / Workstations / Tapes / Voice Mail / Other media

b. Who -- Custodians

c. When -- Applicable Period

d. Where -- Applicable Locations

2. What has been done so far (other “litigation holds”, etc.)?

3. Documenting preservation

a. Will preservation efforts be privileged?

4. Monitoring compliance and other follow-up

B. New Obligations (Rules / Common Practice)

1. Likely impact of new rules even if not in federal court

2. Early substantive conferences with opponent / court

3. Early identification of e-data to opponent, even sampling of e-data for opponent

4. Limitations on use of “business records” in interrogatory responses

5. Early decision on form(s) of electronic production

C. Likely costs, risks, & benefits

- 180 -

WHEELER TRIGG KENNEDY LLP

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION WITH CLIENT CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

2

II. EARLY FACTUAL RESEARCH

A. Information Systems / Information Technology Group (IS / IT)

1. What is the structure of the company’s IS / IT group?

2. How many network servers does the company have?

a. Where located?

b. What technology?

3. Has IS / IT provided a detailed listing—a “map” of all data files, data sets, and databases potentially covered by litigation-hold notice?

4. What e-mail system does the company use?

5. What is method / system for e-data backup?

6. Does the company recycle backup tapes or other backup media?

7. How many backup tapes are used each day? each week? each month?

8. What would be the cost if recycling of backup tapes were suspended?

9. What is the retention policy for online (live) e-mail files?

10. What is the retention policy for online non-e-mail e-data (user and shared directories / folders)?

11. What other “litigation holds” are already in place for company’s e-data?

12. Are there any “legacy systems” that might contain relevant e-data?

B. Company Employees

1. How many employees might have relevant e-data?

a. Who are they?

b. What departments / groups?

2. What electronic devices do employees use?

3. Where do employees store data?

4. What data files (databases) do employees generate?

5. Are steps in place to preserve e-data of departing employees?

- 181 -

WHEELER TRIGG KENNEDY LLP

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION WITH CLIENT CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

3

III. EARLY JUDGMENTS / DECISIONS

A. Preservation

1. Is it necessary to suspend recycling of backup tapes?

2. Who is creating and maintaining the official record of all preservation steps taken?

3. “Litigation hold” notice

a. Who will send it?

b. When to send it?

c. To what universe of employees should it be sent?

d. How are employees to handle relevant documents before they are collected to avoid spoliation issues?

e. Who will field questions from employees?

B. Collection

1. What are the “topic scopes” and “time scopes” for documents to be collected?

a. Largely governed by complaint-claims & discovery

2. Who will do the physical collection?

a. Vendor?

i. High-tech?

ii. Mid-tech?

b. outside counsel?

c. in-house legal staff?

d. company IS staff?

e. employees themselves?

3. Are forensic collection methods required?

C. Pre-Attorney-Review Processing

1. Scope of de-duplication

2. Selection of “review platform”

3. Extent of pre-attorney-review coding

- 182 -

WHEELER TRIGG KENNEDY LLP

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION WITH CLIENT CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

4

D. Attorney Review

1. Expected Outcomes

a. Subject-matter coding?

b. Where will documents “reside” for deposition & trial preparation?

2. Who are the attorney reviewers?

3. Where will review take place?

4. How will reviewers be trained, and with what training material?

5. Who will supervise trainers?

6. What record will there be to defend review process?

E. Production

1. What reasonably usable forms of production will be used?

a. No native format

2. “Reading Room” or “by request productions?

3. extent of production of “metadata”

4. What categories of information must be redacted, and how will that be handled?

5. Consistency with production of documents originally in hardcopy

F. Privilege

1. Can “review platform” be designed to make logging of privileged documents efficient?

2. Is there a “privilege actor” list available for the reviewers?

3. Are there any steps in place to monitor possible inadvertent productions and to notify opponent(s) of any such inadvertent productions?

- 183 -

Com

pany Data Files /

Databases

Preliminary

Electronic Discovery

Analysis

System N

ame

Application N

ame

Technology "Engine"

Application Server N

ame

Data Server N

ame

Physical Location of Data C

enter

IS / IT Contacts

Business O

wners / Prim

ary Users

Business Purpose

Implem

entation Date

Predecessor System

Data Size (gigabytes)

Num

ber of Records

Data Structure M

ap

List of Available R

eports

Export Formats

Explanation of Accessibility of D

ata

Explanation of Burden to A

ccess / Export Data

Capabilities to Filter D

ata for Relevance Purposes

Level of Confidentiality / Privilege of D

ata

Data Purge Policy / R

ecord Retention Policy

Data B

ackup Schedule

Litigation-Hold Start D

ate

Status of Recycling of B

ackup Media

Com

pany Data Files or D

atabases Prelim

inary Electronic D

iscovery Analysis.m

map - 1/28/2007 - Joe V

alentine

- 184 -

THE BASIC TERMS OF A SAMPLE “PARACHUTE” DEAL (1) $250 per hour for Trial Lawyer A and Trial Lawyer B’s time, not to exceed $50k, plus $50 per hour for paralegals' time, not to exceed an additional $5k; (2) No bonus if outcome results in payment in excess of $6M; (3) Bonus of up to $300K for outcome between $3M and $6M (10% of each dollar saved between $3M and $6M);and (4) An additional bonus of $150K for any outcome under $3M. These terms generally apply in the event of either trial to a verdict or settlement; however, if the case should settle before trial without Trial Lawyer A and Trial Lawyer B having added significant value, we will work with you in good faith to reach agreement on what bonus, if any, should be paid.

- 185 -

Know

The Rules

Federal

State

Conf. S

tate Ct. Judges

Status of S

tate Courts

The Com

puter Systems

Preservation Steps Taken by Client

Before the

Conference(s) w

ithO

pponent & C

ourt

Act

Prepare or Approve

Litigation-Hold N

otice

Custodian S

copeTim

e Scope

Geographic S

cope

Subject-M

atter Scope

Separate N

otice to IT personnel

Audit Preservation

Com

pliance

Backup D

ata Recycling

E-M

ail Auto-deletion

Responses to Litigation-H

old Notice

Periodic R

eminders

Monitor D

iscoveryC

ompliance

Collection P

rocess

Review

Process

Privilege Issues

Production P

rocess

Electronic D

iscovery ES

I Is Not E

asy.mm

ap - 4/18/2008 - Joe Valentine

- 186 -

Practice Areas

• Commercial • Intellectual Property • Product Liability • Professional Liability • Securities • Toxic Torts

Industries

• Computer Hardware • Construction &

Construction Equipment

• Energy • Financial Services • Industrial Equipment • Manufacturing • Pharmaceuticals • Professional Services

My practice focuses on commercial, product liability, and toxic tort litigation. I have always enjoyed the trial practice because it provides me with the opportunity to present complex and technical information to a jury who are almost always trying to do the right thing. Overcoming all of the technical arguments and issues and convincing a jury that the right thing to do is to render a verdict for my client is endlessly challenging and extremely satisfying.

Cases

• Jury agrees that distribution of funds did not violate LLC's operating agreement

• Injunction to shut down ski area for trespassing denied • Castle Rock v. Conoco • Golan v. Ashcroft • Laser Tech v. BDO Seidman LLP • Stearns v. Jetway • CoPIRG v. Conoco • Denver v. Conoco • Denver v. Coors • Rieder v. Hallmark • Diamond Shamrock v. Conoco • Scott v. Conoco • Cornerstone v. BDO Seidman LLP • Sonoco Products Company v. Newark Paper Products • Union Pacific v. International Insurance

Clients

• BDO Seidman • Duke Energy • FMC

- 187 -

- 188 -