Cle social media_byod_bigdata_ethics_sxsw
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•416 views
Cobra Legal Solutions""
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (19)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (10)
Ähnlich wie Cle social media_byod_bigdata_ethics_sxsw
Ähnlich wie Cle social media_byod_bigdata_ethics_sxsw (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Cle social media_byod_bigdata_ethics_sxsw
- 1. March 2014 South X Southwest Social Media, BYOD, and Big Data- Trends and Ethical Considerations ©2013 - Confidential and Proprietary to Cobra Legal Solutions LLC
- 2. • 10 Billion Emails: What Did We Miss? • BYOD: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You • @SocialMedia: Prsv & Rvw 4 #Dfense & #Winning • The Game Changer: TAR/CAR • Questions 2
- 4. The New Reality • Corporate data is doubling in size annually • 80% of data unstructured • 168,000,000 emails transmitted every minute • Average executive receives 300 emails each day • 5 custodians = 2 ½ million pages – the height of the TransAmerica building 4
- 6. How much data could be on a phone? • Smart phones start at 8 GB and go up to 64 GB • Add a microSD card and you could carry 128 GB of storage in your pocket 6 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 8 GB 64 GB 128 GB
- 7. BYOD By The Numbers 7 Intel infograph
- 8. BYOD and Data Security • Employers are concerned about data – A study by network access solutions provider Aruba Networks found that nearly 20 percent of U.S. workers have not told their employers that they use a personal mobile device for work. – Paul Luehr, managing director at Stroz Friedberg, has seen a rise in BYOD data breaches in his business, especially in employment matters and trade secrets. 8
- 9. BYOD and Data Security • Employers are concerned about data – According to a recent survey, data loss is a bigger priority than malware (75 percent versus 47 percent). – A lost or stolen mobile device consistently ranks as the chief mobile security issue in most studies. 9
- 10. BYOD and Data Security • Employees are concerned about privacy – According to ITBusinessEdge, 76% of respondents would not give their employer access to view what applications are installed on their personal device. – 75% of respondents would not allow their employer to install an app which gives the company the ability to locate them during work and non-work hours. – 82 percent are concerned to extremely concerned about their employers tracking websites they browse on personal devices during non-work time 10
- 11. Law Firms, Ethics, and BYOD • Law firms have extra obligation: • At employment law firm Dowling Aaron, they understood the dangers of having some 50 attorneys carrying phones with access to client documents but no passcode protection or wipe capabilities. • "If we end up on the front of the Fresno Bee because an attorney left his phone at the bar... the damage to your reputation could literally be millions of dollars,“ explained CIO Darin Adcock. 11
- 12. Social Media, Cloud: Trends & Impact • Discovery will only get broader as courts request social media Regas Christou, R.M.C. Holdings, LLC, d/b/a The Church…d/b/a Funky Buddha Lounge, et al v. Beatport LLC, Bradley Roulier, et al.. 12 Impact: More data will need to be ingested and processed, but less data can be culled on key terms, increasing data growth.
- 13. Social Media, Cloud: Trends & Impact • Discovery will only get broader as courts order broad production of social media E.E.O.C. v. Original Honeybaked Ham Co. of Georgia, Inc., No. 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH, 2012 WL 5430974 (D. Colo. Nov. 7, 2012) 13 Impact: Human reviewers will be needed to review IMs, texts, and other social media which uses abbreviations and shortcuts.
- 14. Social Media, Cloud: Trends & Impact • Discovery will only get broader as courts request social media Theresa Giacchetto v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District, No. CV 11–6323 (2013 WL 2897054 E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2013). 14 Impact: Counsel will need to spend more time reviewing clients’ social media to determine production or face sanctions.
- 15. Fulfilling Your Ethical Obligations • Communication with Your Client • Supervise the work – Establish thorough review protocol – Establish communication channel for questions – Spot check review in initial stages – Review privilege documents 15 Per article in Boston Bar Journal, the outsourcing lawyer retains the Rule 1.1 obligations.
- 16. Technology Solutions 16 Vendors can coordinate and consolidate the discovery process so that the various phases of eDiscovery are managed consistently and support the legal strategy in each case, but the lawyer is still responsible.
- 17. Processing Solutions Ingestion All documents collected are loaded into processing tool. Some documents might be converted. Preprocessing/Culling DeNIST, Dedup, Metadata Filters Final processing Keyterm filtering if any; prepare docs for review tool 17 Thorough processing can reduce data size from 30 – 90%
- 18. What is TAR/CAR? • TAR = Technology Assisted Review • CAR = Computer Assisted Review • Predictive Coding = computer actually tags documents based on algorithms or symantic indexing Get the right CAR! 18
- 19. CAR and Predictive Coding 19
- 20. Protecting Your Client with CAR • Understand seed set generation • Comprehensive ESI & Protective Order • Clawback • Analysis • Due diligence on technology methodology • Eyes on production set! 20
- 21. Courts embracing analytics and predictive coding EORHB, Inc. v. HOA Holdings, LLC, No. 7409-VCL (Del. Ch. Oct. 15, 2012). The Court instructs both parties to use predictive coding. MAY 2013 UPDATE: Judge issues new order backing down! Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012). Note also that non-responsive docs will be submitted to opposing. Global Aerospace, Inc. v. Landow Aviation, L.P., No. CL 61040 (Vir. Cir. Ct. Apr. 23, 2012) 21
- 22. Alternatives: Analytics Without Coding 22
- 23. Managing Analytics • Mixed messages on costs: In re Aspartame Antitrust Litig., 817 F. Supp. 2d (E.D. Pa. 2011) The court awarded costs for standard processing and hosting. The court declined to award costs related to a “sophisticated e-discovery program” as “squarely within the realm of costs that are not necessary”. Gabriel Techs., Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., No. 08CV1992 AJB (MDD), 2013 WL 410103 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013) Court awarded over $12 million in attorneys' fees for contract attorney document review and use of Computer-Assisted Review, reasoning that “CAR” was “more efficient and less-time consuming”. 23
- 24. Managing Analytics • Mixed Messages on Costs (continued) The Country Vintner of North Carolina, LLC v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, Inc. No. 12-2074, April 29, 2013, US Court of Appeals for Fourth Circuit 24 Published opinion affirmed strict definition of “making copies”, and only awarded Gallo reimbursement of $218.59 out of the $111,047.75 that they spent on processing ESI.
- 25. Managing Analytics • Analytics will significantly reduce the number of documents to be reviewed, the highest % of discovery costs† • Parties will be expected to turn over all non-priv docs from seed set, including non-responsive docs‡ • Helpful to have a vendor that provides flat fee for analytics 25
- 26. In Conclusion… • What are your “take aways” for: BYOD? Social Media and Cloud Data? Technology and Computer Assisted Review? • Questions? 26
- 27. Housekeeping • Please sign the attendance sheet and include your bar number • Please complete the Evaluation Form at the end of the presentation and return 27
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Candice
- Just 4 GB of data = 300,000 pages and 120 boxes, on the conservative side. I’ve seen estimates of 25K – 50K docs/GB.. Most corporate employees have at least 20 GB of data not including system files. Corporations without strict information governance polices can have employees with 6 different 15 GB PST files plus e-docs. If companies cannot control the volume of data going into the system, how can costs be controlled?
- Just 4 GB of data = 300,000 pages and 120 boxes, on the conservative side. I’ve seen estimates of 25K – 50K docs/GB.. Most corporate employees have at least 20 GB of data not including system files. Corporations without strict information governance polices can have employees with 6 different 15 GB PST files plus e-docs. If companies cannot control the volume of data going into the system, how can costs be controlled? AND IT IS ALL DISCOVERABLE
- How do you find all the data as well? Fake names are easy to create… see slide.
- Apple iPhone, which is sold in 16 GB, 32 GB, and 64 GB models. Most sealed smartphones stick with the 16-, 32-, and 64-GB options… Per ___, “Samsung plans to sell the Galaxy S 4 in 16-, 32-, and 64-GB options, same as the iPhone. However, the S 4 also accepts microSD cards. The difference between the 16-GB model and the 64-GB model will probably be about $200 at the register. You can choose the 16-GB model, though, and pair it with a 64-GB card (totaling 80 GB of storage) for only about $50 more. Need more than 80 GB? Buy another card to supplement what you already have. If you want as much storage in your smartphone as you have in your laptop, pick the 64-GB model and pair it with a 64-GB microSD card. Having 128 GB in your pocket is kind of crazy, but it's certainly an option.” 8 GB = 126,32864 GB = 1,010,624 docs128 GB = 2,021,248. Two Eiffel Towers…
- Intel infograph
- Mobile malware may dominate headlines, but according to the recent LinkedIn Information Security Community survey of 1,600 IT administrators, data loss is a bigger priority in their organizations than malware (75 percent versus 47 percent). A lost or stolen mobile device consistently ranks as the chief mobile security issue in most studies.
- More of survey:Business users expressed a great deal of concern about their employers looking into their lives. In fact, very few respondents expressed no concern.82 percent are concerned to extremely concerned about their employers tracking websites they browse on personal devices during non-work time 86 percent are concerned to extremely concerned about the unauthorized deletion of their personal pictures, music, and email profiles Only 15 percent are not at all concerned about employers tracking their location during non-work time Only 15 percent are not at all concerned about employers tracking personal apps installed on their devicesA study by network access solutions provider Aruba Networks revealed that BYOD , which is the term used for employees using personal smartphones and tablets for work purposes, is causing workers to be fearful of their employer checking out their personal information. Specifically, 45 percent of U.S. workers worry about giving their company's IT department access to their personal data, and 46 percent said they would feel violated if their IT staff were to access any personal information contained on their mobile devices.The research found that these concerns are leading many employees to keep their personal devices away from the IT department, thus putting company data at risk. Nearly 20 percent of U.S. workers have not told their employers that they use a personal mobile device for work."Employees resent the power their employers now wield over their personal data but are equally unconcerned about keeping company data safe," said Ben Gibson, chief marketing officer at Aruba Networks.
- Adcock has had to take more drastic actions, even one aimed at a partner in the law firm. The attorney was sharing his iPad with his family, and they kept taking off the passcode. Adcock sent a friendly email reminder. On the next failed compliance check, Adcock had to selectively wipe the iPad per the BYOD policy.Top management compelled the attorney to comply with the BYOD policy in the future
- Laura: Court ruled January 23, 2013 spoliation did occur because text messages were deleted and not produced.NEW CASE: Christou v Roulier. While defendant argued that text messages did not contain relevant messages, the Court determined that defense counsel did not review text messages to determine that first. Text messages were included in the legal hold language, and defendant had a duty to preserve. Per Court, “Plaintiffs may argue whatever inference they hope the jury will draw.” IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge R. Brooke Jackson Civil Action No. 10-cv-02912-RBJ-KMT
- Laura: The Court ordered broad discovery of class members’ social media, text messages and email.E.E.O.C. v. Original Honeybaked Ham Co. of Georgia, Inc., No. 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH, 2012 WL 5430974 (D. Colo. Nov. 7, 2012)In this case involving allegations of sexual harassment, a hostile environment and retaliation, the court granted in part Defendant’s Motion to Compel and ordered broad discovery of class members’ social media, text messages and email.NEW:Gatto v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 10-cv-1090-ES-SCM, 2013 WL 1285285 (D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2013)In this personal injury action, the court imposed spoliation sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to preserve his Facebook account.
- Laura: The Court ordered limited discovery of plaintiff’s social media, including Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace.Quotes from Order: The fact that Defendant is seeking social networking information as opposed to traditional discovery materials does not change the Court's analysis. EEOC v. Simply Storage Mgmt., LLC, 270 F.R.D. 430, 434 (S.D.Ind.2010). The Court also notes that the “fact that the information [Defendant] seeks is in an electronic file as opposed to a file cabinet does not give [it] the right to rummage through the entire file.”The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a party to prove the existence of relevant material before requesting it.If the Court were to allow broad discovery of Plaintiff's social networking postings as part of the emotional distress inquiry, then there would be no principled reason to prevent discovery into every other personal communication the Plaintiff had or sent since alleged incident. As explained by Magistrate Judge Francis in Rozell v. Ross–Holst: *3 To be sure, anything that a person says or does might in some theoretical sense be reflective of her emotional state. But that is hardly justification for requiring the production of every thought she may have reduced to writing or, indeed, the deposition of everyone she might have talked to.The Court does find, however, find that certain limited social networking postings should be produced. First, Plaintiff must produce any specific references to the emotional distress she claims she suffered or treatment she received in connection with the incidents underlying her Amended Complaint... Moreover, in seeking emotional distress damages, Plaintiff has opened the door to discovery into other potential sources/causes of that distress. Thus, any postings on social networking websites that refer to an alternative potential stressor must also be produced. However, unfettered access to Plaintiff's social networking history will not be permitted simply because Plaintiff has a claim for emotional distress damages.First, the Court sees no basis at this time why Defendant should go through a third-party provider to access Plaintiff's social networking postings when Plaintiff has access to this information herself. Therefore, the Court directs that Plaintiffs postings be reviewed for relevance by Plaintiff's counsel and that Plaintiff's counsel—not Plaintiff—make a determination regarding the relevance of the postings, keeping in mind the broad scope of discovery contemplated under Rule 26.
- All the bar rules insist on strict supervision of outsourced attorneys, whether US or non-US. Perform DUE DILIGENCE.
- Laura: EDRM = Electronic Discovery Reference ModelIn re Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc. Plastic Coolant Tubes Prods. Liab. Litig., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7999 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 24, 2012) (citing the N.D. Ohio Local Rule App. K Default Standard for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information). The Ohio federal court specifically noted, however, that notwithstanding the appointment of the discovery coordinators, the attorneys at “all times” will be “responsible for responding to e-discovery requests.” Id. at *18.Green v. Blitz U.S.A., Inc, No. 2:07-CV-372 (TJW), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20353 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2011), the court swiftly issued sanctions against the defendant for failing to produce key emails regarding the subject flame arrester because it failed to do a simple search for “flame arrester,” which would have found relevant emails regarding a key issue in the products-liability litigation. The defendant shockingly placed an employee in charge of searching for and collecting documents for the litigation, who admitted that he was basically computer illiterate. Here, the court found a willful intent to destroy evidence and awarded sanctions involving a $250,000 payment to the plaintiff for the prejudice that occurred from the defendant’s discovery violations and conditionally awarded another $500,000 if the defendant did not produce the court’s decision to every plaintiff in every lawsuit it was defending or had defended in the past two years. The defendant was even ordered to file the court’s decision with its first pleading or filing in every future litigation for the next five years. Peerless Indus., Inc. v. Crimson AV, LLC, No. 1:11-cv-1768, 2013 WL 85378 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 8, 2013)In this case, the court concluded that Defendants’ reliance on a vendor to accomplish collections from a non-party whose documents were in Defendants’ control was “insufficient” and granted Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. Specifically, the court ordered Defendants to “show that they in fact searched for the requested documents and, if those documents no longer exist or cannot be located," to "specifically verify what it is they cannot produce” and ordered Plaintiff to submit its costs related to preparation of the motion.Noting the Managing Director’s deposition testimony that “there was a process outlined ‘I guess by the vendor,’” the court concluded that Defendants “took a backseat approach” and “let the process proceed through a vendor.” As a result the Managing Director, “had no part in the process . . . .” was unable to answer questions about the non-party’s information systems, search efforts, custodians, preservation efforts, or whether any of Sycamore’s employees “were even contacted regarding plaintiff’s document requests.” The court concluded that “such a hands-off approach [wa]s insufficient.”
- Can filter on custodian, date, file types (including system files), whatever…. Can use file inclusion or file exclusion for file type filtering. HOWEVER, must have entered agreement with opposing counsel and/or the court prior to eliminating certain file types, date ranges, or custodians from review. An ESI Agreement should be discussed in the 26(f) meet & confer, and per the FRCP the final plan should be submitted to the court. This includes: “requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a), including astatement of when initial disclosures were made or will be made;(B) the subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery should be completed, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused on particular issues;(C) any issues about disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced;(D) any issues about claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation materials, including—if the parties agree on a procedure to assert these claims after production— whether to ask the court to include their agreement in an order;(E) what changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under these rules or by local rule, and what other limitations should be imposed; and(F) any other orders that the court should issue under Rule 26(c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c).”
- Laura: First, let’s note that “analytics” and “technology assisted review” or “computer assisted review” are not the same things predictive coding. Predictive Coding is a small subset that falls into TAR. Technology or computer assisted review can include concept clustering, email threading, even key term culling.Courts are even confusing names, with District Judge Battaglia using “computer assisted review” for predictive coding.
- Note the never-ending circle in the process….
- Laura:Seed set generated by “judgmental” sample or random sample, or combination? Both sides using same method?ESI agreement should be specific for CAR and include specific language on confidentiality. Spell out level of confidence and stability!Clawback for inadvertent production of privileged docs.Follow standard analysis recommended by EDRM and perform QC of both non-responsive and responsive docs.Several methods available now – algorithm? Symantic indexing? Active learning? Support vector? “Magic black box”? Most importantly, how is computer review “complete” – stability? Overturns? Error rate upon QC?Every doc that will be produced should have been reviewed by a human for privilege and issues, not to mention responsiveness validation. The theoretical savings are a result of not reviewing non-responsive docs.
- Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster in Delaware Chancery Court issued the bench order requiring both sides to use predictive coding and to use the same vendor. EORHB, Inc., et al v. HOA Holdings, LLC, C.A. No. 7409-VCL (Del. Ch. Oct. 15, 2012). This appears to be the first time a judge has required both sides of a dispute to use predictive coding when neither has asked for it. It may also be the first time a judge has ordered parties to use the same vendor. Quote: “The problem is that these types of indemnification claims can generate a huge amount of documents. That’s why I would really encourage you all, … it seems to me this is the type of non-expedited case where we could all benefit from some new technology use.” Classic case of judge getting ahead of himself without understanding document technology.UPDATE: Unpublished opinion, Order dated May 6: WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that, based on the low volume of relevant documents expected to be produced in discovery by EORHB, Inc., et al (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), the cost of using predictive coding assistance would likely be outweighed by any practical benefit of its use; WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that there is no need for the parties to use the same discovery review platform; WHEREAS, the requested modification of the Order will not prejudice any of the parties; … (i) Defendants may retain *** and its computer assisted review tools to conduct document review; (ii) Plaintiffs and Defendants shall not be required to retain a single discovery vendor to be used by both sides; and (iii) Plaintiffs may conduct document review using traditional methods.Judge Peck ruled in favor, noting: “That does not mean computer-assisted review must be used in all cases,… . What the Bar should take away from this Opinion is that computer-assisted review is an available tool and should be seriously considered for use in large-data-volume cases.” Note also that non-responsive docs will be submitted to opposing:“[a]ll of the documents that are reviewed as a function of the seed set, whether [they] are ultimately coded relevant or irrelevant, aside from privilege, will be turned over to” plaintiffs. (2/8/12 Conf. Tr. at 73.)Also note that in Nat’l Day Laborer Org. Network v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement Agency, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2012 WL 2878130 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2012), Judge Scheindlin was specifically addressing the adequacy of defendant’s search & collection efforts, but added: “*12 There are emerging best practices for dealing with these shortcomings and they are explained in detail elsewhere. There is a “need for careful thought, quality control, testing, and cooperation with opposing counsel in designing search terms or ‘keywords' to be used to produce emails or other electronically stored information.” And beyond the use of keyword search, parties can (and frequently should) rely on latent semantic indexing, statistical probability models, and machine learning tools to find responsive documents. Through iterative learning, these methods (known as “computer-assisted” or “predictive” coding) allow humans to teach computers what documents are and are not responsive to a particular FOIA or discovery request and they can significantly increase the effectiveness and efficiency of searches.” This clearly indicates Judge Scheindlin’s acceptance of predictive coding in her court.
- Laura: A graphic interface can allow quick analysis of the most relevant custodians, and can inform counsel if a potentially key custodian was inadvertently missed. This is on point for both “trends” and “ethical considerations”:The trend is that more and more in-house and law firm companies are using analyticsEthically, you protect your discovery efforts by ensuring no custodian is missed, and you protect your client if they didn’t know about a particular “smoking gun” custodian. Additionally, you can promote faster settlement or even dismissal if you can demonstrate to opposing counsel that a particular custodian was NOT sending emails during a particular time period (especially in employment cases).
- Laura: On Aspartame: “sophisticated e-discovery program” described as a “document review tool with visual clusteringAfter noting that the efforts of outside vendors had reduced the volume of potentially responsive documents by 87% as to one defendant and 38.5% as to another, the court stated: ” We therefore award costs for the creation of a litigation database, storage of data, imaging hard drives, keyword searches, deduplication, data extraction and processing. FN3 Because a privilege screen is simply a keyword search for potentially privileged documents, we award that cost as well. (Doc. No. 28 at 27). In addition, we award costs associated with hosting data that accrued after defendants produced documents to plaintiffs because, as the plaintiffs themselves acknowledged earlier in the proceedings, discovery was ongoing in this case up until summary judgment was issued. … We further award costs associated with the technical support necessary to complete these tasks, as other courts have done. We also side with the many courts that have taxed costs for optical character recognition (OCR), the process of making fixed images such as PDFs and TIFFs searchable. See, e.g., Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., No. 07–1294, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48847, at *28–31 (W.D.Pa. May 6, 2011); Searchable documents are essential in a case of this complexity and benefit all parties. We additionally grant Holland Sweetener's $26,244.36 cost for “Production Processing Fee–Load File.” This cost covers the creation of load files that allow documents saved as TIFFs to be loaded onto review platforms.Rest of cost quote: …” which the court declared… falls “squarely within the realm of costs that are not necessary for litigation but rather are acquired for the convenience of counsel.”InGabriel Techs, the court notes that CAR was “reasonable under the circumstances” and found the requested about of $2,829,349.10 to be reasonable.
- Laura:The judges relied on Race Tires America v Hoosier Racing Tire Corp, and the 2002 update to §1920(4) regarding reimbursement for “copies”. The only expenses approved were for TIFF and PDF production and CD copies. Judge Davis quoted the Committee appointed in 2002 to review §1920. “While the Committee ‘agreed that §1920 did not address many of the technology expenses” they were concerned “that the charges for these new expenses could dramatically expand the intention of the statute, which was to allow the taxing of costs in a very limited way.” Despite the fact that processing “copies” metadata, the court was not persuaded.
- Laura:† Both Aspartame and Gabriel noted that large amounts of data that can be culled with analytics. Gabriel: Defendants provide the following explanation for the resulting fees: “Over the course of this litigation, Defendants collected almost 12,000,000 records-mostly in the form of Electronically Stored Information (ESI).... Rather than manually reviewing the huge volume of resultant records, Defendants paid H5 to employ its proprietary technology to sort these records into responsive and non-responsive documents.” (Defs. Mot., Doc. No. 332–1 at 26). After the algorithm determined whether documents were responsive or unresponsive to discovery requests, Black Letter attorneys reviewed the responsive documents for confidentiality, privilege, and relevance issues. (Id. at 26, n. 11.) For this reason, the review performed by H5 and Black Letter accomplished different objectives with the H5 electronic process minimizing the overall work for Black Letter. Again, the Court finds Cooley's decision to undertake a more efficient and less time-consuming method of document review to be reasonable under the circumstances. In this case, the nature of Plaintiffs' claims resulted in significant discovery and document production, and Cooley seemingly reduced the overall fees and attorney hours required by performing electronic document review at the outset. Thus, the Court finds the requested amount of $2,829,349.10 to be reasonable.See also Global Aerospace: While the order granting defendant’s request is one page, the defendant’s Memorandum in Support is over 156 pages, including exhibits. They note that technology assisted review can result in costs “1/100th of linear review”.‡ BothDe Silva MooreandGlobal Aerospace