5 tips for creating an in-house e-discovery team
The benefits both outweigh and greatly reduce the costs
July 30, 2012 at 08:00 PM
5 minute read
The reasons for having an internal e-discovery team are long and varied, but experts agree that it is a giant cost-saver.
To that end, Dykema Gossett Partner and e-discovery practice head Dante Stella offers the following suggestions for organizations seeking to create their own in-house e-discovery teams:
1. Have realistic expectations on what a program might do and the potential cost savings. Not every discovery contingency can be foreseen by an in-house program, and modern case law increasingly requires trial counsel to supervise discovery efforts by clients.
2. When you construct your in-house team, choose a team leader with interest and inclination—someone who is willing to make the significant time investment in staying on top of both academic and real-world developments. This person also should be able to play well both with outside counsel and with IT personnel critical to preserving and collecting data. We often see senior paralegals performing this leading role.
3. When it comes to technology, think in terms of stages, and build step-by-step based on cost-effectiveness and results. Start with software (or even training) that helps you construct and track litigation holds. Then, if your company's size and litigation profile can justify it, think about a system that helps you index, search and export data. A third step might be some form of early case assessment. You don't have to do everything at once.
4. You almost always have a better chance of getting a budget for something if there is a non-legal business case for it. One example is an email archiving system that cuts everyday storage costs for IT and supports your records policy, but also allows the legal department to hold and perform sophisticated searches.
5. Even if the only thing you ultimately achieve with an in-house program is to develop a way to effectively identify and preserve data needed for litigation, you're still better off for having done it.
The reasons for having an internal e-discovery team are long and varied, but experts agree that it is a giant cost-saver.
To that end,
1. Have realistic expectations on what a program might do and the potential cost savings. Not every discovery contingency can be foreseen by an in-house program, and modern case law increasingly requires trial counsel to supervise discovery efforts by clients.
2. When you construct your in-house team, choose a team leader with interest and inclination—someone who is willing to make the significant time investment in staying on top of both academic and real-world developments. This person also should be able to play well both with outside counsel and with IT personnel critical to preserving and collecting data. We often see senior paralegals performing this leading role.
3. When it comes to technology, think in terms of stages, and build step-by-step based on cost-effectiveness and results. Start with software (or even training) that helps you construct and track litigation holds. Then, if your company's size and litigation profile can justify it, think about a system that helps you index, search and export data. A third step might be some form of early case assessment. You don't have to do everything at once.
4. You almost always have a better chance of getting a budget for something if there is a non-legal business case for it. One example is an email archiving system that cuts everyday storage costs for IT and supports your records policy, but also allows the legal department to hold and perform sophisticated searches.
5. Even if the only thing you ultimately achieve with an in-house program is to develop a way to effectively identify and preserve data needed for litigation, you're still better off for having done it.
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 AllGC With Deep GM Experience Takes Legal Reins of Power Management Giant
2 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute read'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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