Twit, twittle, twit. The long view of e-disclosure

There is a view often expressed that the law is failing to keep up with developments in technology. You only have to read the papers (if anyone still does) or read what people are saying on a myriad of social networking sites of which Facebook and Twitter are the most often quoted.

Occasionally the law comes up against someone who is perceived by some to be a particularly persistent “offender”. That person writes a series of articles, the subject of which then seeks to prevent disclosure of the material. The matter comes to court and then the unexpected (or should I say unintended?) happens. The trial does not go as expected and the whole point of the court case is lost. The person who attempted to prevent disclosure has a considerable amount of egg on his/her face and the information they wished to keep secret is more widely disseminated than they could ever have feared.

Does this sound familiar? If so, you are probably thinking footballers playing away, super injunctions and tabloids screaming with names, pictures and luridly illustrated stories.

Continue reading

Top 10 Ways in which lawyers are wasting their clients’ money

James Moeskops reflects on how technology and costs, if not practice, have changed since the early days of e-Discovery.

In the early days of electronic disclosure/discovery, addressing the requirement to review and disclose large volumes of electronic documents was time consuming and the technologies available at the time were of marginal assistance to lawyers.

To illustrate how far the technology has advanced and costs fallen, I will use the example of one of Millnet’s earliest large scale electronic disclosure engagements, which was assisting a law firm client on one of the largest matters then seen. We were initially engaged in 2002 to process approximately 100GB of predominantly email data and to present the processed data in an online review platform. We took approximately 12 months to complete the document collection, processing and loading phase and the lawyers took a further 2-3 years to review everything. Millnet’s fees were upwards of £1 million over a 3 year period (with most of the earliest electronic processing being completed on a per page basis because everyone was used to paying for photocopying on this basis).

Fast forward to 2011. Were we to be engaged on an identical project today, we would have the entire 100GB of data processed in a matter of hours and available in a far more efficient and sophisticated online review database within 48 hours at a cost of circa £50K.

Continue reading

We’ve got it taped (#6 of 6)

In this last of six case studies/scenarios, James Moeskops, sets out the case for Millnet’s approach to searching backup material using the powerful and low-cost Index Engines technology.

Scenario 6 – Index Engines technology put to innovative use.

A client provided a set of data containing on assortment of Microsoft Outlook mail folders (PST files), Outlook Express mail folders (DBX files) and Windows back up files (BKF Files). The backup files in turn contained backed up copies of Outlook and Outlook Express mail folders.

The BKF files were a challenge, as they are not generally supported by early case assessment tools, including Millnet’s software of choice Nuix, which is set up to manipulate Outlook and Outlook Express formats. A number of alternative methods were tried, including manual extraction but none of them proved satisfactory.

Continue reading

We’ve got it taped (#5 of 6)

In this fith of six case studies/scenarios, James Moeskops, sets out the case for Millnet’s approach to searching backup material using the powerful and low-cost Index Engines technology.

Scenario 5 – When trying to establish the absence of evidence of an act or omission.

Millnet has assisted with many intellectual property and other forms of commercial disputes where the defendants have struggled to find a method of proving the lack of any evidence to support the claim against the firm. Put another way, to prove the negative.

The challenge is that a firm which is sure that it does not have any evidence of wrong doing (such as for instance copies of a competitor’s commercially sensitive documents or other intellectual property) does not want to incur significant cost to prove this.

This latest service from Millnet assists in these circumstances – whether you are representing the party which believes there is incriminating evidence somewhere on the corporate network, or the party that is sure there isn’t but does not have a cost effective means of proving it.

Continue reading

We’ve got it taped (#4 of 6)

In this fourth of six case studies/scenarios, James Moeskops, sets out the case for Millnet’s approach to searching backup material using the powerful and low-cost Index Engines technology.

Scenario 4 – Struggling with proportionality or cost issues where the sources of electronic documents are wide and search parameters are unclear or disputed.

A very common scenario is where you are advising a client facing disclosure where there is potentially a large volume of electronic information to search, such as one or more email servers, central shared file servers and a multitude of desktop or laptop computers. This scenario is complicated when the sums involved are relatively low or where the client is very reluctant to incur high costs, especially those associated with a third party provider of electronic disclosure services.

Historically, this scenario may result in the client trying to do all or most of the searching and collection work using internal IT resource, hiring a low cost and not necessarily expert third party themselves or opting to take the stance that a very narrow or limited search is appropriate and defensible under CPR Part 31 and PD 31B.

Even relatively small companies will have some form of backup system in place. It will almost certainly be a breach of the Companies Act or at least highly negligent to not have such a backup in place to ensure business continuity in the event of a disaster such as fire or flood. Backup tapes have been, and still are, the most common media for creation and storage of backups. They are low cost, store very large volumes of data and can easily be transported to a secondary site or stored in a fireproof safe.

Assuming you are following the guidelines set out in the CPR Part 31 and PD 31B and the Electronic Documents Questionnaire, you will be aware of your clients’ backup systems and policies. If they are using such systems and backing up to tape, Index Engines can offer these benefits -

  • Super fast. The contents of backup tape(s) are made searchable at hundreds of gigabytes per hour!
  • Low cost. Charged on a per tape basis, starting at £300.
  • High volume. Modern backup tapes can store in excess of 10 million emails and attachments on a single tape.
  • Forensically sound. Backup tapes are a forensically sound source of electronic documents.
  • Minimum hassle. Most companies have existing backup processes in place and can provide backup tape(s) with little notice or hassle.
  • Go back in time. Most companies have a backup policy that may involve archiving data back over many years.

Further information – Millnet Smart e-Discovery :: Index Engines

We’ve got it taped (#3 of 6)



In this third of six case studies/scenarios, James Moeskops, sets out the case for Millnet’s approach to searching backup material using the powerful and low-cost Index Engines technology.

Scenario 3 – Arguing against a request for specific disclosure of backup tapes on the basis of proportionality.

This scenario is similar to my previous example – except in this case “the shoe is on the other foot”.

If you are facing a request for specific disclosure or worse, a Final Order, then it pays to be aware of Millnet’s new Index Engines service.

Depending on the circumstances, it may be possible to respond to these requests (or even exceed them) within the tightest of deadlines and at a lower cost than you may have anticipated.

If in the past you have argued that it is not proportionate to search backup tapes (or are planning to argue thus), it may be necessary to re-think this argument.

Continue reading

We’ve got it taped (#2 of 6)



In this second of six case studies/scenarios, James Moeskops, sets out the case for Millnet’s approach to searching backup material using the powerful and low-cost Index Engines technology.

Scenario 2 – Seeking specific disclosure from opponent who is arguing that the request is disproportionate.

If you are facing a request for specific disclosure or worse, a Final Order, then it pays to be aware of Millnet’s new Index Engines service.

Depending on the circumstances, it may be possible to respond to these requests (or even exceed them) within the tightest of deadlines and at a lower cost than you may have anticipated.

Millnet has recently assisted a law firm client to respond to a Final Order to search the “central server” of an organisation that had 156 servers, none of which could be considered to be the “central” server.

Continue reading

We’ve got it taped (#1 of 6)



The retrieval of potential evidence from backup tapes my not be a subject that sets the pulse racing (for some of us at least) and the effort required to do so may hitherto have been ruled out on cost/proportionality grounds anyway. The emergence of new technology has changed all that and lawyers now need to be aware of what’s possible, if for no other reason to avoid being caught unawares when the other side suddenly demands it..

In this first of six case studies/scenarios, James Moeskops, sets out the case for Millnet’s approach to searching backup material using the powerful and low-cost Index Engines technology.

Scenario 1 – Seeking to gain tactical advantage by searching widely over your client’s electronic documents at relatively low cost.

If you are representing the claimant in a commercial dispute and you believe that the defendant is likely to be in possession of electronic documents of critical importance to your case, but…

Continue reading

Snails, smoke balls and good neighbours

Lawyers will all remember (some possibly with fondness) the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562. The snail in the ginger beer case was a favourite of mine at university not least because it showed the human side of the law and how the law related to real life.

I was only slightly amused to discover that this famous case  has recently been given a musical treatment by the catchily-named Australian “rock band” Lord Atkin & the Tortfeasors. Click the video below… if you dare.

Continue reading

The Road from Wembley

Almost everybody has heard of the protracted litigation between Multiplex and various parties arising out of the construction of the new National Stadium at Wembley.  Amongst those disputes the largest, and most publicised, was that between Multiplex and its steelwork sub-contractor, Cleveland Bridge (CB).

Less well known are the 6 paragraphs (out of a total of 1693!) in a judgment given towards the end of last year in yet another Multiplex/CB case (no. 6) and entitled “The Lesson to be drawn from this Litigation”…

Continue reading