UNC Athletic Scandal: New Wainstein Document Details

[BigWayne]

The article above is about John Fennebresque resigning as Chairman of the UNC board of governors.

Although I would be surprised if a lawyer in North Carolina would reveal anything detrimental to UNC, I was curious about the following quote from UNC system president Tom Ross.

“While John Fennebresque and I may have had our differences at times, he truly loves the University of North Carolina and has been a tireless, passionate advocate for it,” said UNC President Tom Ross."

I may be misreading here, and I may be confusing the UNC system with the University of North Carolina. Is Fennebresque supposed to be a representative of the entire system, or is he placed in his position as a representative of the University on the board? Because in the quote above, Ross describes him as a "tireless, passionate advocate" for the University. Is this the duty of the Chairman of the Board of Governors? I know that the other schools within the system already decry the (lack of) impartiality of the UNC system. But it is interesting that the President of the UNC system clearly finds being a tireless advocate of the University consistent (and laudable) with being Chairman of the Board of Governors. In a case such as this, with long-standing academic fraud by the University, I would not think the interests of the University were necessarily consistent with those of the System. But again, perhaps I do not properly understand the role of either the Chairman or the President.

There are two entities that have technical definitions which are not consistent with what people generally think of when they hear the names.

The University of North Carolina (http://www.northcarolina.edu/) is the full system of 17 campuses, including NCSU, ECU, etc.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (http://www.unc.edu/) is just the campus in Chapel Hill and is what most people think of when the hear "The University of North Carolina."

Tom Ross, being an employee of the former entity, is referring to that.

[trinity92]

I'm not convinced that the high fees follow from the difficulty of searching the large number of documents (although the fees might very well follow from the appearance of difficulty). The search for relevant documents was conducted by Cadwalader's "IT specialists." The only additional details I found in the report were that the search involved 48 keywords to identify relevant documents. Depending on the methodology, that might or might not be so onerous a task. If they did something like using Outlook to search through *.pst or *.msg files I'm sure it would take a frustratingly long time. If they converted emails to a simple text format, they might narrow down several million records to a few thousand in a day, and even rank them by prioritizing keywords or their combinations. Load a million emails as text onto a Linux machine, grep for the right regular expressions, and you'll get results fast. On the other hand, Cadwalader probably had access to specialized software for the task, making it even simpler to narrow the search. It's possible that the only documents they actually reviewed were the ones provided in the report's addendum, although I suspect the set was larger than that.

We really can't say for sure without more knowledge of the search methodology. What intrigues me is the possibility that the search parameters were only used for the initial selection of documents. Given the information we have now, what would a new search based on expanded parameters yield? My personal dream is for an email tying Crowder, Roy, and statements by Rashad McCants.

As someone who has past lives both as a litigation attorney and as electronic discovery director hired by the Cadwaladers of the world (or their clients directly) to structure and execute large document reviews like this, I can tell you the document searching is done as part of the document collection process. Search terms are heavily negotiated between the parties to the action, then an outside company runs the search terms and then pulls all documents with a hit to a database, which is then indexed and integrated with coding forms. There is virtually no human interaction with the documents at this stage, and there are an incredible number of documents that get pulled to the database and that must be reviewed by human eyes that contain search term hits that are not truly responsive to the document request-- imagine every piece of spam or personal email you get, then imagine how many might have words like basketball, attendance, paper, class, roy, williams, ugly, shade, blue . . . you get the idea. The law firm then hires a team of 10 - 100+ outside attorneys to review the documents to see if they're truly responsive to the inquiry, with broad issue checkboxes to help further sort the issues of the case. All documents deemed unresponsive are put aside and in the vast majority of cases will never see the light of day again. All responsive documents are then subject to secondary review by law firm associates.

The initial collection and indexing of data is a separate and substantial cost-- must admit I never paid one of these bills, so I can't estimate cost per document, but could approach or even surpass the cost of the first pass review by contract attorneys. Cost for the first pass team of attorneys is somewhere between .45 and .55 per document, so 200,000 documents would cost around $100,000 for the first pass. The second pass will be between 5% and 20% of the original document count depending on how pointed the search terms were and how responsive the documents were, with the big firm's junior associates charging $300+/hr. and a couple senior associates overseeing at $500+/hr. and conferring with the $1K+/hr. partner on the case as needed. It gets expensive quickly.

[madscavenger]

......In a case such as this, with long-standing academic fraud by the University.......

Oh, Owen, it was just a Fraudian Slip.

If he actually knew about the academic fraud ( ) , then it was a Faustian slip.

[swood1000]

As someone who has past lives both as a litigation attorney and as electronic discovery director hired by the Cadwaladers of the world (or their clients directly) to structure and execute large document reviews like this, I can tell you the document searching is done as part of the document collection process. Search terms are heavily negotiated between the parties to the action, then an outside company runs the search terms and then pulls all documents with a hit to a database, which is then indexed and integrated with coding forms. There is virtually no human interaction with the documents at this stage, and there are an incredible number of documents that get pulled to the database and that must be reviewed by human eyes that contain search term hits that are not truly responsive to the document request-- imagine every piece of spam or personal email you get, then imagine how many might have words like basketball, attendance, paper, class, roy, williams, ugly, shade, blue . . . you get the idea. The law firm then hires a team of 10 - 100+ outside attorneys to review the documents to see if they're truly responsive to the inquiry, with broad issue checkboxes to help further sort the issues of the case. All documents deemed unresponsive are put aside and in the vast majority of cases will never see the light of day again. All responsive documents are then subject to secondary review by law firm associates.

The initial collection and indexing of data is a separate and substantial cost-- must admit I never paid one of these bills, so I can't estimate cost per document, but could approach or even surpass the cost of the first pass review by contract attorneys. Cost for the first pass team of attorneys is somewhere between .45 and .55 per document, so 200,000 documents would cost around $100,000 for the first pass. The second pass will be between 5% and 20% of the original document count depending on how pointed the search terms were and how responsive the documents were, with the big firm's junior associates charging $300+/hr. and a couple senior associates overseeing at $500+/hr. and conferring with the $1K+/hr. partner on the case as needed. It gets expensive quickly.

Meanwhile, UNC says that it is spending $600,000 per year just handling regular public records requests. Not clear if this includes the massive requests by the News & Observer and The Daily Tar Heel for all of the Wainstein documents.

[sammy3469]

Meanwhile, UNC says that it is spending $600,000 per year just handling regular public records requests. Not clear if this includes the massive requests by the News & Observer and The Daily Tar Heel for all of the Wainstein documents.

That's in addition to the 2.6 million they paid Cadwalader to process the N&O/DTH request. Of course that request was completed in June, so UNC's been sitting on the documents.

[BLPOG]

As someone who has past lives both as a litigation attorney and as electronic discovery director hired by the Cadwaladers of the world (or their clients directly) to structure and execute large document reviews like this, I can tell you the document searching is done as part of the document collection process. Search terms are heavily negotiated between the parties to the action, then an outside company runs the search terms and then pulls all documents with a hit to a database, which is then indexed and integrated with coding forms. There is virtually no human interaction with the documents at this stage, and there are an incredible number of documents that get pulled to the database and that must be reviewed by human eyes that contain search term hits that are not truly responsive to the document request-- imagine every piece of spam or personal email you get, then imagine how many might have words like basketball, attendance, paper, class, roy, williams, ugly, shade, blue . . . you get the idea. The law firm then hires a team of 10 - 100+ outside attorneys to review the documents to see if they're truly responsive to the inquiry, with broad issue checkboxes to help further sort the issues of the case. All documents deemed unresponsive are put aside and in the vast majority of cases will never see the light of day again. All responsive documents are then subject to secondary review by law firm associates.

The initial collection and indexing of data is a separate and substantial cost-- must admit I never paid one of these bills, so I can't estimate cost per document, but could approach or even surpass the cost of the first pass review by contract attorneys. Cost for the first pass team of attorneys is somewhere between .45 and .55 per document, so 200,000 documents would cost around $100,000 for the first pass. The second pass will be between 5% and 20% of the original document count depending on how pointed the search terms were and how responsive the documents were, with the big firm's junior associates charging $300+/hr. and a couple senior associates overseeing at $500+/hr. and conferring with the $1K+/hr. partner on the case as needed. It gets expensive quickly.

Wow. Thanks for the insight!

[OldPhiKap]

As someone who has past lives both as a litigation attorney and as electronic discovery director hired by the Cadwaladers of the world (or their clients directly) to structure and execute large document reviews like this, I can tell you the document searching is done as part of the document collection process. Search terms are heavily negotiated between the parties to the action, then an outside company runs the search terms and then pulls all documents with a hit to a database, which is then indexed and integrated with coding forms. There is virtually no human interaction with the documents at this stage, and there are an incredible number of documents that get pulled to the database and that must be reviewed by human eyes that contain search term hits that are not truly responsive to the document request-- imagine every piece of spam or personal email you get, then imagine how many might have words like basketball, attendance, paper, class, roy, williams, ugly, shade, blue . . . you get the idea. The law firm then hires a team of 10 - 100+ outside attorneys to review the documents to see if they're truly responsive to the inquiry, with broad issue checkboxes to help further sort the issues of the case. All documents deemed unresponsive are put aside and in the vast majority of cases will never see the light of day again. All responsive documents are then subject to secondary review by law firm associates.

The initial collection and indexing of data is a separate and substantial cost-- must admit I never paid one of these bills, so I can't estimate cost per document, but could approach or even surpass the cost of the first pass review by contract attorneys. Cost for the first pass team of attorneys is somewhere between .45 and .55 per document, so 200,000 documents would cost around $100,000 for the first pass. The second pass will be between 5% and 20% of the original document count depending on how pointed the search terms were and how responsive the documents were, with the big firm's junior associates charging $300+/hr. and a couple senior associates overseeing at $500+/hr. and conferring with the $1K+/hr. partner on the case as needed. It gets expensive quickly.

To echo this, they are considering changes to the federal rules of civil procedure to deal with the outrageous cost of electronic discovery.

[trinity92]

To echo this, they are considering changes to the federal rules of civil procedure to deal with the outrageous cost of electronic discovery.

The thing is, discovery has gotten much cheaper in the last 10 years or so. Used to be, the big firm would hire a team of temporary attorneys themselves, then bill the client multiples of their cost-- it was a real profit center for the big firms. Only more recently have clients started hiring the ediscovery teams themselves, rather than through their lawyers, knocking costs way down. So too, the more sophisticated searches and indexing have reduced the number of documents that even get seen by human eyes enormously, knocking down the number of attorney hours spent on review.

[OldPhiKap]

The thing is, discovery has gotten much cheaper in the last 10 years or so. Used to be, the big firm would hire a team of temporary attorneys themselves, then bill the client multiples of their cost-- it was a real profit center for the big firms. Only more recently have clients started hiring the ediscovery teams themselves, rather than through their lawyers, knocking costs way down. So too, the more sophisticated searches and indexing have reduced the number of documents that even get seen by human eyes enormously, knocking down the number of attorney hours spent on review.

True, although they still need to be reviewed by counsel before going out. You need to review for privileged material, and then you also need to know what is going out the door so you know the relevant facts. And the other side has to have their lawyers review whatever is produced too. It is a pretty burdensome process that can really spin out of hand relative to the amount at issue, which is the basic balance the new rule is seeking to strike.

[oldnavy]

This morning while getting items checked at the door by an arrogant Heels fan. I was wearing a Duke shirt.

As I approach, in an attempt to be nice.

"How are you doing?"

"Good, now that we are 6-0," said with all the arrogance of a Wal-Mart Carolina fan which is where he should be employed.

"Helps when you don't have to go to class." As i am departing.

I heard what sounded like a huge throat constriction behind me. Rarely do I entertain these fools but this guy went to the well one time too many. I know a few good fans that follow the light blue but it is a tiny percentage. Most arrogant base of people I have ever encountered.

Boy do I hope they get everything they have coming to them by the NCAA.

& No the 6-0 is not a typo. Just repeating the conversation as it took place.

Funny, I just had a UNC customer tell me that they haven't done anything that everyone else hasn't done for years... and that the NCAA was just trying to make an example out of them. I didn't even bother to correct her, it wouldn't make a bit of difference, they live in a different world...

[BD80]

nothing like a PO'd BOG member to possibly reveal some stinky...

They didn't get a "harumpf" out of that guy.

[wilson]

The thing is, discovery has gotten much cheaper in the last 10 years or so. Used to be, the big firm would hire a team of temporary attorneys themselves, then bill the client multiples of their cost-- it was a real profit center for the big firms. Only more recently have clients started hiring the ediscovery teams themselves, rather than through their lawyers, knocking costs way down. So too, the more sophisticated searches and indexing have reduced the number of documents that even get seen by human eyes enormously, knocking down the number of attorney hours spent on review.

It also seems like vastly improved search technology would drive these costs down, no?

[wsb3]

Funny, I just had a UNC customer tell me that they haven't done anything that everyone else hasn't done for years... and that the NCAA was just trying to make an example out of them. I didn't even bother to correct her, it wouldn't make a bit of difference, they live in a different world...

They really do live in another world. I love it when they don't land a recruit & blame it on the NCAA while at the same time say they did not want this guy anyway. My favorite is when some genius at IC says they should sue..yes please sue..Let's start bringing everyone into court & let them face perjury charges if they don't tell the truth.

Consider all the information that has come out & then imagine court where all the parties are brought in like say Crowder..& they testify..

Personally as bad as the academic scandal is at UNC I can't imagine how deep & how bad it really is. There is no way everything has come out. Even the good folks at Pack Pride I don't think have gotten all of out, though I love their passion & what they have been able to accomplish.

[MarkD83]

So...the front page of DBR has an article about Sean May being hired as an assistant BBall coach at UNC.

Now things get very interesting as mentioned in the article. How many coaches do we recall were fired because they falsified their resumes? Does this whole scandal mean that if Sean May lists he is a graduate of UNC that he is falsifying his resume?

[trinity92]

It also seems like vastly improved search technology would drive these costs down, no?

Absolutely. OPK is quite right about the need to have your lawyers' eyes on the second pass and beyond and to dive deep enough into the docs to use them and defend against their use. However, great progress has been made to refine searches and use the terms themselves to "predictively code" documents via machine, which has vastly reduced the volume of documents that require a human first pass review. Eventually, that need will
Probably be eliminated.

[wsb3]

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/loc...e41475339.html



Millions spent for defense of something their fan base believes did not occur.

[sammy3469]

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/loc...e41475339.html



Millions spent for defense of something their fan base believes did not occur.

Interestingly, Kane changed his wording from last week from UNC hasn't received an amended NOA or timeline from the NCAA to UNC hasn't gone before the infractions committee.

[-jk]

It also seems like vastly improved search technology would drive these costs down, no?

Alas, English is still remarkably ambiguous and inscrutable. I suspect algorithms won't be anywhere close to enough for a really long while.

-jk

[Henderson]

Absolutely. OPK is quite right about the need to have your lawyers' eyes on the second pass and beyond and to dive deep enough into the docs to use them and defend against their use. However, great progress has been made to refine searches and use the terms themselves to "predictively code" documents via machine, which has vastly reduced the volume of documents that require a human first pass review. Eventually, that need will
Probably be eliminated.

Maybe. But it would be malpractice to let search software make the discretionary decisions necessary to comply with FERPA, state privacy laws, attorney-client privilege, medical privileges, and public records laws all at the same time. We may get there one day, but we aren't close today. Like, really not close.

It's a pain in the atlas, but somebody with some training has to look at each page.

And now you know why tuition is high. UNC's base line budget for public records requests may seem astronomical, but it's pretty normal. And it doesn't shock me at all that they are paying this much to comply with requests for these docs. It could be a lot more if they were turning over paper and charging the requesters for the time and documents.

Edit: In fact, as much as I hate to say this, I'm pleasantly surprised that UNC-CH is absorbing the costs of public records production. Maybe that's required in NC, but in every other state with which I'm familiar, the public body producing records gets to charge the requester for the reasonable costs of making the production. That keeps a lot of frivolous or casual requesters from tying up the university with broad requests. Such as this. Another way of putting that is it discourages folks from requesting documents, so there's that.

[Duke95]

nothing like a PO'd BOG member to possibly reveal some stinky...

When I read that, my first thought was, man, how did the Boggers get dragged into this?