How Does Your Organization Rank on the eDiscovery Maturity Model?
It's time to revisit eDiscovery Maturity Model and discern how well it has held up to real world practices.
October 02, 2017 at 08:17 PM
5 minute read
Seven years ago this month, BIA co-published on edrm.net the industry's first eDiscovery Maturity Model. The model was designed to help organizations better understand how they were handling eDiscovery and how they can improve their processes and reduce costs over time.
As the effects of the Great Recession were still being felt, corporate and organizational leaders were looking for ways to increase efficiency and reduce costs, and the eDiscovery Maturity Model helped outline a path for organizations to do just that. And then when the spotlight on data security began to grow even brighter, the impetus to truly take control of the organization's data and eDiscovery process became even more important, and the model helped there, as well.
Back in 2010, most organizations still found themselves ranked in the lower levels of the model, with the majority still outsourcing nearly all of their eDiscovery needs to their law firms or other service providers, with little to no oversight or involvement. But over the past seven years, things have changed at an increasing pace, with more and more companies starting to take control of their eDiscovery processes, and thereby moving up the levels in this model.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 AllFormer Capital One Deputy GC Takes Legal Reins of AIG Spinoff
Legal Departments Dinged for Acquiescing to Rate Hikes That 'Defy Gravity'
4 minute readApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Trending Stories
- 1Here's What Corporate Litigators Expect Del. Courts to Address in 2025
- 2U.S. Supreme Court Has No Jurisdiction Over Trump's New York Criminal Case: Prosecutors
- 3The Law Firm Disrupted: With KPMG's Proposed Entry, Arizona's Liberalized Legal Market is Getting Interesting
- 4Womble Bond Dickinson Adds New Leaders as Merger Is Completed
- 5Family's Disability Discrimination Suit Cleared to Go Forward Against Six Flags
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