Multi-Million Document Litigation
Evaluating Document Review Options and Database Technology
The Enron case was among the first of mega-sized cases that are quickly becoming the norm. Law firms managing multi-party litigation with millions of documents to review need to find effective solutions that won’t tax their personnel and technology infrastructure beyond their capacities.
Using the experience of three law firms that handled the fidelity and crime insurance claims pertaining to the Enron case, this article provides a case study for evaluating document review options and determining the right database technology choice.
Huge Scale Case
Today law firms are challenged as never before when faced with mega-sized cases that involve millions of documents and millions of dollars. A multi-million document litigation will saddle a law firm with difficult technology decisions and staffing concerns. How does a law firm involved in a mega-sized case evaluate its document review options and determine the right database technology choice?
The law firms handling fidelity and crime insurance coverage claims pertaining to the collapse of Enron Corp. confronted just such an issue. The insurance companies faced claims in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Krebs, Farley & Pelleteri, a New Orleans-based boutique, represented Federal Insurance Company. Strasburger & Price, a Texas law firm, was counsel for St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, while attorneys from the southern California offices of Anderson McPharlin & Conners served The Great American Insurance Company.
The challenge: 12 million disorganized pages. Enron produced 12 million pages in the litigation. The documents arrived in PDF format on hard drives with “no index and no organization,” recalled Lori Moss, the lead paralegal from Anderson McPharlin & Conners. The law firm spearheaded efforts to develop a robust litigation-support database that would provide advanced search capability and would facilitate document review as the insurance defense firms prepared for depositions. The database ultimately served the three law firms’ legal teams both in their offices and at remote locations across the country. Shared document access and analysis between the legal teams was deemed extremely important.
Outsized technology demands threaten to drive costs out of sight. The technology requirements for a large Enron-sized case exceeded the existing capabilities of most law firms. Costly computer hardware, software and services were needed: new servers, increased computer storage capacity, network connectivity and security improvements, round-the-clock help-desk support and rapid disaster recovery. Travis Parker, who headed up the information technology department at Anderson McPhalrin & Conners, understood the challenges. “We had never played at this level before.”
Investing heavily in computer hardware, software and consulting services to “build-your-own” system was expensive and risky. Cost-recovery of capital outlays for computer hardware expenditures would be difficult. Why would a client want to upgrade a law firm’s computer system if the client might choose to settle quickly? And, then there was the responsibility of maintaining and managing the computerized database system. How would costs be allocated among the joint defense counsel?
Outsourcing the Clear Solution
Early on the law firms decided that the 12 million pages of discovery would be managed and maintained by a third-party solution. Hosted database providers offered turnkey solutions and expert operation of Web-accessible database systems. Hosted database providers, also known as application service providers (ASP) or software as a service (SaaS) companies, were an attractive alternative to a large-scale upgrade to the law firm’s existing computer system and substantial (and likely unrecoverable) information technology management expense. By contracting with a third-party service provider, the joint defense group’s legal team could share the cost of the system and still be supported in the event one party settled out of the case.
Key criteria for selecting the right partner. Criteria were developed to compare prospective hosted database providers. First, the legal team agreed the database must be intuitive and user friendly. Some attorneys were “very computer savvy,” according to Lisa Le Nay, a partner at Anderson McPharlin & Conners, while others had “rarely used a computer.” Learning to use a complicated application was neither productive nor desirable. Second, the vendor needed prior database hosting experience in a case of similar size. Moreover, the hosted database provider needed professional references to support their claims they were capable of managing a massive case. Third, the hosted database needed to be up and running quickly, soon after the contract was signed.
A group of four hosted database providers were selected for analysis. The joint defense group reviewed a cross-section of database review platforms, including CT Summation’s CaseVault.
Online vendor demonstrations were scheduled, which provided insights into ease-of-use, screen displays, reporting and search speed. During the question and answer sessions, Parker found that some software was easier to use than others and “some software didn’t work the way the product was marketed.” The online demonstrations were effective in showing how an attorney or paralegal would interact with each system.
While comparing features was relatively straightforward, analyzing the various pricing models was difficult. Some companies provided flat-rate pricing, while others chose tiered-pricing that adjusted for every five to 10 gigabytes loaded. A big price differentiator for the Enron matter was whether the 12 million pages of PDF files needed to be converted prior to loading into the systems. These types of upfront costs varied widely. Some companies charged a large figure initially, while others charged little upfront and had larger monthly charges. Comparing the anticipated cost for hosting 12 million pages was difficult but important: the hosted database provider charges in the Enron case would approach $1 million.