Ediscovery Trends

Here’s a slightly different approach on an old ediscovery problem: what to do with all this data?  Because data lives in so many different places, and there are so many different ways to get at the data, perhaps this non-preservation of specific ESI is the way to go.

One important thing that happens when parties agree NOT to preserve certain data is that their costs go down.  Instead of worrying about litigation holds on a multitude of complex systems (tape backups, voicemail, email, network traffic, browser history and cache, logs, etc.), the parties agree not to preserve certain things so that the company can continue with day-to-day operations.

I’m not sure this solution is ready to be widely implemented yet, but it’s a good start when it comes to reducing overall legal costs.  Some electronic discovery sources are not going to necessarily find you information pertinent to litigation, or are simply too costly to recreate in a meaningful way (like backup tapes).  This approach is keeping ediscovery sources confined to the realm of documents “kept in the ordinary course of business” and without placing a burden on that business.

I’m amazed when I hear the stories from document review attorneys.  If it’s not an “80 docs per hour” mandate, then I hear “but NONE of these documents are relevant”!  A little bit of litigation technology can go a long way, reducing your overall review costs and getting back to the legal issues at hand.

First, ask yourself what the scope of the ESI collection was.  Are you going to pay a contract attorney to review every document in your set?  Their time (and your money) is better spent if you prioritize dates, custodians, and filetypes first, so they’re not reviewing an entire mailbox full of calendar appointments before they know what’s relevant.

Early case assessment tools can be deployed to cut down on the overall review load.  The metadata extracted before the eDiscovery process is very critical in order to use early case assessment software.  Too many law firms go right to offshoring or outsourcing, which drastically impacts the quality of document coding.  Instead, ask your litigation support personnel about how you can save money and actually improve the quality of your coding at the same time!

When making a decision on whether or not to outsource an ediscovery job, there are many questions you may wish to ask yourself.

Accurately assessing the volume of ESI to be reviewed is crucial.  Can your litigation support team manage the workload and properly leverage your internal ediscovery solution?  What resources will opposing counsel be using?

After answering those questions, check out the EDRM model.  Where is your firm in this stage of litigation?  Are you in an early phase – forensically preserving and collecting documents, or are you looking for a solution to search and cull documents?  Maybe the overall volume of ESI is small and you’re looking to review documents, or ready to produce them to opposing counsel.

As the linked article says, there is usually a need for balance in ediscovery.  It’s important to stay on top of new technologies in litigation support software – this area is always changing and efficient vendors can emerge quickly.  Consult your legal team about their needs for each particular case so you are on the same page.