The Curious Case of the Hyphen in E-Discovery/eDiscovery
I've always used the hyphenated version e-discovery. But it seems like I'm in the minority—or do we not need that pesky "e" at all?
May 04, 2020 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
|
I have something perhaps shameful to admit. I'm a hyphen truther. For years, I've planted my flag staunchly in that side of an important debate that has ripped through legal technology for years: Do you spell e-discovery/eDiscovery with or without a hyphen? I've corrected articles to read "e-discovery," have debated about how to capitalize it in headlines, and listened as my peers staunchly rebuked my hyphenated ways.
As it turns out, my preferred method may not be the industry's at large. In an informal poll I conducted via email and Twitter in April, more than half (54%) of 53 respondents said that "eDiscovery" was their preferred way to spell the term, compared with just 19% for the hyphenated version. An additional 27% said that it doesn't matter, because it's all "discovery" anyway!
This finding brought me great trauma; it was part of a public Relativity Fest panel last year where I planted my flag in the hyphen camp. Now though, I'm having second thoughts. Sitting next to me at that event was Kelly Twigger, principal at ESI Attorneys and a prominent writer on e-discovery, and she's declaring victory.
"I have used 'ediscovery' since I started doing this in 2004 and have held fast that it is the correct way. I am glad the industry has come around," she told me via email. "I write a lot and some editors change it (in my book the editor changes it to e-discovery despite my protests). I use eDiscovery when the word should be capitalized. I'm not sure I have a good reason as to why, it just makes sense to me that way. I go by gut."
But maybe it's time to get rid of the "e" altogether? David Horrigan, discovery counsel and legal education director at Relativity, told me that the discovery giant has the hyphen in its style guide. But that's not what has his attention.
"However, we should all avoid redundancy in our writing," Horrigan argues. "Because almost all data are now electronic, can we finally just drop the 'e' altogether and go back to those glorious, bygone days of yesteryear when it was just 'discovery'?"
Not so fast, Twigger said. "We are not quite there yet, so I don't agree that all discovery is electronic. Yet. We still do have paper, and lots of folks are still converting paper to electronic to deal with in discovery, particularly on the plaintiffs' side. That came up recently on one of Ari [Kaplan]'s virtual lunches, and there are many corporations with mounds of paper sitting at Iron Mountain and the like that has to be dealt with on some matters. I do agree that every case has ESI and therefore ediscovery, but we have to be careful to avoid just the defense perspective when looking at these issues industry-wide."
And still others took an alternative view. Befitting a retired federal judge, Andrew Peck, now a partner at DLA Piper, took a wider look at the problem—maybe the hyphen isn't the only issue? "Then there is the question of which letter is capitalized. Is it eDiscovery or Ediscovery? Or for that matter EDiscovery?" he asked.
Then, in a scary development, he put the onus on a certain editor: "Maybe it's time for some publication to have a style guide that answers this question. Not likely for The New York Times to step in, so I think you and LTN get to make the call."
So if I'm going to make a call, I need hard data. Legal technology researcher and consultant Ari Kaplan is the man with the numbers: Kaplan has spent hundreds of hours over the past six years interviewing a range of leaders for research. His sixth annual E-Discovery Unfiltered report is due to be released shortly, and he is immersed in data about the sector.
And what deep insights did he find? "One of the key conclusions has been, among others, that well-intentioned, high-level, in-house professionals and their well-informed law firm-counterparts agree to disagree on hyphenation," Kaplan said.
Is that right? Well, then in my official determination … I'll punt. I think that everyone should use what they're comfortable with, even if it means I'm increasingly left alone on my hyphenated island.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250