1 / 34

Tales From the Litigation War Room: High Stakes in Information Governance

Tales From the Litigation War Room: High Stakes in Information Governance. John W. Bagby Prof. Info. Sci. & Tech. Pennsylvania State University. Overview. Crisis Tests Practice Conformity with Well-Designed Standards Reduces Litigation Risk

vaughan
Download Presentation

Tales From the Litigation War Room: High Stakes in Information Governance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Tales From the Litigation War Room: High Stakes in Information Governance John W. Bagby Prof. Info. Sci. & Tech. Pennsylvania State University

  2. Overview • Crisis Tests Practice • Conformity with Well-Designed Standards Reduces Litigation Risk • Crisis Management Most Effective if Well Prepared

  3. Crisis/Catastrophe Litigation “When looking for an effective test of an organization’s preparedness, there is really nothing quite like a crisis that triggers high stakes litigation.”

  4. Stakes Attracts Investment • Crisis often unexpected, potentially severe • Crisis mismanagement raises risks of failure • Scale of Catastrophe Implies Large Groups • Share community of interest • EX: affinity group members, shareholders, clients, employees, alumni, geographic neighbors, supply chain participants • Consequences uncertain & unpredictable • Prepared & Nimble Organizations/Verticals • Pivot Quickly to Respond Effectively • But if Caught Off Guard & Flat-footed • response capabilities, contingency planning, backup

  5. Litigation Surprise

  6. Crisis Readiness: Law & Economics • Crisis Readiness Fails Traditional Investment Criteria • High Stakes Combine with Low Readiness • Result: High Contingent Liability Risk • Irregularity of Catastrophic Events Engenders Ignorance • Catastrophic Events Blindside the Unprepared

  7. Preparedness Investment Fails ROI Readiness Market Disciplines Less Convincing • Market Incentives often Insufficient to spur Readiness • High, Near-Term Costs, Uncertain Delayed Benefits • Avoidance of Unquantifiable & Unpredictable Future Losses, • Not Traditional Upbeat Positive Cash Flows (e.g., Sales) • The NPV Compounding Problem • Severe when Interest Rates are Higher than today • Other Analytics Are Needed to Assess Litigation Readiness in Catastrophic Cases • So Need Familiarity with Litigation & Regulation

  8. Some Litigation Preparedness Investment Satisfies ROI Screen • publicly-traded companies & financial firms – securities litigation • sellers of goods – product liability • manufacturing, chemical, transportation, mineral extraction/processing firms - environmental • service providers - malpractice • all firms not-fors & govt agencies- employment

  9. Preparation • Prepare for Investigations • Regulatory, Criminal, Self-regulatory organization (SRO), Internal • In-house counsel familiar with operations & personnel; • Ongoing experience & good relations with external litigation counsel; • Employee Training in Legal Process & recurring regulatory enforcers • Siege-Survival Skills: Avoiding Inadvertent Disclosures, Press Relations; Evidence Preservation; Defensible Records Management Regime

  10. Document Preservation • Form of Readiness: “the” essential conundrum • Records Destruction Risks Spoliation, Obstruction, Regulatory Sanctions • Records Retention Has Plausible Utility • Smoking Gun Production Risks Liability • Records Mgt Standardization - Some Defense • Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles • ISO 15,489 • COBIT • EDRM • Litigation Holds: Planning, Dry Runs, ESI Teams • And there Will be Litigation War Rooms

  11. Churchill’s Second World War Rooms

  12. Modern War Room Origins • Derived from actual war time hostilities • Originally Centralized Physical Location • Information Gathering • Expertise Applied for “Sense-Making” • Enables Strategic Planning • Expert Analysts Findings • Informs Decision-Makers • Traditional Physical War Room Features • Walls project images, maps, data • Informs Analysis & Planning

  13. Cold War Room

  14. Modern Electronic War Room • Invest in war room facilities, training & readiness • Justified for high stakes campaign • Concentration of information, hypotheses, testing assertions, debate, command & control decision-making • Transaction & communication costs reduced • Public Policy Derivations • Adapted to litigation, pre-trial discovery, political campaigns & crisis management • Crisis particularly useful organizing principles • Document Repositories • Provide easy access to: robust literature, primary/secondary docs • Selective Availability to defined group(s) • Strategic choice: publicly accessibility

  15. Virtual War Rooms • Various Locations: Security Defense & Cost • Dispersed Actors • Connected Electronically to Info Respositories • Public Internet connections vs. secure lines • Communications nerve center(s), • eDiscovery “in the Cloud” • What is the Cloud’s Street Address Again? • That’s an “in rem” lawyer’s joke • Closed systems preserve confidentiality • Open systems trade-off confidentiality • May Destroy Confidentiality & Privacy

  16. Litigation WaRoom • EXs in Instruction & Outside Litigation: • Enron War Room – electronic repository of litigation docs • Political Campaign war room • Deep Water Horizon War Room - repository of BP Litigation documents Gulf Oil Spill • Often Powerful • Crowd Source Enabled • leads, interpretation, documents, video, participant recruiting, leadership

  17. CrowdSource Investigations • Online Collaboration Lowers Costs/Barriers • Access many people, each performs subset of tasks • Crowd Source Scholars May Argue: • 1st Central authority organizes, sets narrow task, vets before decision-making • Here, grassroots impetus is eventually focused • Independent Investigative Journalism • Cite to D.Tapscott; A.D.Williams; P.Bradshaw • Derived from social networks (SN) & wikis • Website encourages crowdsource content mgt • Ward Cunningham: "simplest online database” • Design options: • Confidentiality; group expertise, size & dedication; raw data vs. deep analysis through Sense Making

  18. SenseMaking in General • Follow-on & interative with investigation • HCI, Information & Organization Sciences • Decidedly Interdisciplinary • Simultaneous Data Gathering & Framing: • Retrospection, Social Interaction, Ongoing, Cues/Clues Discovery, Plausibility trumps Accuracy • Narrative(s) Hypothesize & Summarize “Findings” • Cite to: K.Weick; B.Dervin

  19. SenseMaking in Crisis CrowdSource Investigations • Stakeholders both apparent, self-appointed • Incentives derived from info. scarcity, complexity, contradiction, uncertainty, equivocality, ambiguity, confusion, disbelief, rumormongering • Process: • Key nodes & relationships (links) ID’d • Cognitive mapping: network graphs, time-lines • Scandal clue detection engine(s) deployed • Informant (virtual) network emerges • Driven by rumors, tips, news, knowledge, suspicion • Central repository (WaRoom) deployed, managed • Crowd analyzes, hypothesizes, investigates, reports

  20. Enact or create meaning to justify actions • Action drives intrusion • into environment Meaning guides scanning behavior - Belief–driven scanning Structure drives and guides action SCANNING • Conditional Viewing • Unconditional Viewing • Directed Viewing • Undirected Viewing INTERPRETATION ACTIONv STRUCTURE S. Clark’s SenseMaking Enterprise • Beliefs • Assumptions • Values • Meaning • Technology • Policy/Standards • Procedures/Processes • Organization • Formal Goals • Defend • Prospect Gather information to create meaning • Satisfice • Simplify • Bracketing Translate meaning into action • Implementation • Pursue objectives Action becomes patterned and routinized

  21. Defining Standard Terms • Self-Regulatory Organizations (SROs) • Regulate their members, set standards • May Reduce Govt's Intervention • SDO-Standards Development Organization • Presumes contributions from various players • SDA-Standards Development Activity • Presumes substantial design component & std anticipates (precedes) compliant objects of std • Develops Voluntary Consensus Std (VCS)

  22. Standards ARE Important! • Standards Impact Nearly All Fields • SDA Participants,Affected Parties, Int’l Orgs, Gov’t Agencies, SROs, NGOs, SDOs • eCommerce & Internet largely dependant on Stds: • EX: html, http, 802.11, x.25 packet switching … • Standards May Embody Considerable Innovation • SDA have Innovation Life Cycle Independent of Products/Services Compliant w/ Std • Stds Innovation Occurs in Various Venues • Inside innovating firms, inherent in many products, Inside technical domain groups (trade assoc. professional societies, indus. consortia) • Standards Increasingly Embody Patents • EX: Apple v. Samsung - Standards Essential Patent(s)

  23. Standard Impacts of Standards • Standards May Have Economic Impact • Open Markets, Create Professionalism (Guilds) • Suppress Competitive Alternatives: Barriers to Entry • Monopolize: Lock-in • Increasingly perceived to favor particular nations, industries, identifiable groups & individual firms • Standards May Have Legal Impact • Set legal duties • Guide compliance • Mere minimum floor for activities • Exonerate • Obligate royalty payments • Monopolize (again)

  24. Why are Standards Important? • Stds Increasingly an Emerging Source of Policy • L.Lessig’s Code cited for IT trend: • Public policy imbedded in s/w. f/w. h/w & ICT stds • Do SDA Approximate Traditional Policymaking? • SDA’s impact on public’s consideration/deliberation? • SDA transparency? • Downstream impact so embodied w/in code or technical compatibility details so obscured from public review? • SDA Participants Use Non-Gov’t Venues • Forum Shopping may be Widespread • Classic “Race to the Bottom”

  25. Standards Development Activities (SDA) • SDA are collaborative processes • Infused with technical design • Largely by self-selected groups of interested constituents who assume standard roles (avitars) • Participants must have foresight & resources to engage in protracted, frustrating political processes • General Disadvantages of Standardization • Lock in old/obsolete technology • Resists favorable evolution or adaptation • Favors particular groups & disfavors particular groups

  26. Traditional Standards Taxonomy: Origins • de Jure • Emanate from authorized source (statute, regulation, caselaw, accredited SDO) • Best when de Facto or VCSB rigor unlikely • Policy risks: inadequate, ineffectual, inefficient • EX: determine acceptable risks, sete protection level, balance risk-cost-tech feasibility @ FCC, EPA • de Facto • Generally Not directly endorsed by govt or SDO • Achieve critical mass in market • EX: OS (Windows), content interoperability (VHS) • Less multi-participant coordination & delay, natural result of competition, liberty, flexibility

  27. Traditional Standards Taxonomy: Origins, Accreditation & Certification • Voluntary Consensus Standards Body (VCSB) • NGO, consortia, private-sector venue • Source of most crucial electrical, electronic, Communications & Internet protocols, building/construction, petroleum/fuels, testing methods • Enhances Liberty • Generally OK if Due Process remains strong • Am.Nat.Stds.Inst. (ANSI) • Participates in int’l coordination of standardization • Certifies American National Standards produced by independent SDOs • Nat’l.Inst.Stds. & Tech. (NIST) • Coordinates U.S. Govt.’s stds strategy from statutes, funding, appropriations & by Dept. of Comm. Cite to: J.W.Bagby, Ch.49 in Bidgoli’s Tech.Mgt. (Wiley ’09)

  28. Taxonomy: Autonomy, Specificity, Precision in Implementation • Breadth of variance in compliance • Rules-based standards (precise, most specific) • Most ICT stds & HIPAA security rules • EX: Results of FTC caselaw interpreting G/L/B privacy • Principles-based standards (middle-ground) • FTC privacy security rule • EX: Expected result of SEC pressure on some acctg stds • Principles-only standards (vague, interpretable) • SEC’s G/L/B CyberSecurity stds Reg.SP • IFRS (formerly IAS) issued by IASC

  29. Various Due Process Constraints on SDA Processes • ANSI “Essential” Due Process Requirements • (1) openness (2) lack of dominance (3) balance (4) notification (5) consideration (6) consensus (7) appeals (8) written procedures • OMB Circular No. A-119 • (i) openness, (ii) balance of interest, (iii) due process, (vi) an appeals process, (v) consensus • Standards Development Organization Advancement Act (SDOAA) • Requires Due Processes: Notice of particular SDA to affected parties; Opportunity to participate in SDA; Balancing interests to avoid SDA domination by any single group; Ready access to proposals and final standards; Consideration of all views and objections; Substantial agreement on all material points before reaching final standards; Right to express positions in SDA; Right to consideration of positions by SDO; Right to appeal adverse SDO decisions

  30. Applying the Standards Regime to Records Management Standards • S.Ct. AA case OK’d Routine Doc. Destruction Plan • Spoliation • Adverse Inference • Severity • Obstruction • Criminal Intent • Litigation Holds in Civil Pre-Trial Discovery • Scope • Timing Trigger • Regulatory Retention, Submission, Disclosure • Enforcement Penalties

  31. Financial Crises • LIBOR • Chartered-MoneyLaundering • Value transfer • 2008 Financial Crisis • Derivatives • Capital Reserves • Trading Mechanisms • “On” the table rather than “under the counter” • Some of the Primary Standards Applicable • Accounting, Auditing, Creditworthiness, Financial Market Operations, Ratings, Recordkeeping • ex post: • Regulation Intrudes on Private Decisionmaking • Public Expose Builds Pressure to make the Recordkeeping Regime More Stringent

  32. Environmental Disasters • Varied Types • Agricultural, Health, Industrial, Resource Extraction/Transportation, Nuclear, Natural • Existing Governmental Regulation & Self-Regulatory Regimes Scrutinized • ex post: • Physical Controls, ex ante Studies • Public Expose Builds Pressure to make the Recordkeeping Regime More Stringent • Remediation/Reactions are Culturally Biased

  33. Abuse Scandals • Targets: • Catholic Church • Boy Scouts • Native American Tribes • Ivory Towers • Venues: • State vs. Federal, Criminal, Civil Liability, various Regulatory Regimes, SROs, Internal • ex post: • Reputation, Goodwill Impacts • Public Expose Builds Pressure to make the Recordkeeping Regime More Stringent

  34. Standards Embody IP • Looming Patent Thicket • Complex Web of Inter-Related IP • Both Records Mgt & eDiscovery • EXs Issued Patents: • Predictive Coding • Near De-Dupe • Dozens Adaptable from Info Process, Search, etc • Dozens More Pat. Applications @ PTO & EPO • Large Concentration by a Few Notable Applicants

More Related