E-discovery: The dying art of early case assessment
Before the term was co-opted by e-discovery vendors, early case assessment was a concept that captured the essence of the trial lawyers craft.
August 31, 2012 at 05:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This column is the first in a series addressing the challenges of early case assessment in the era of e-discovery. In this column, I attempt to define the problem; in the columns to follow I will offer some suggestions for how in-house counsel should work with the company's trial counsel in the early stages of litigation to ensure that e-discovery issues do not become an impediment to effective strategic analysis.
Before the term was co-opted by e-discovery vendors, early case assessment was a concept that captured the essence of the trial lawyer's craft, quickly analyzing and synthesizing evidence from multiple sources, collaborating with the client to develop an initial case strategy and formulating a preliminary discovery and litigation plan that will advance that strategy on the road to a successful resolution. In short, early case assessment encompassed the full skill set that an experienced litigator draws upon to seize the initiative from her adversary and develop a proactive strategy for winning the case.
Unfortunately, the high stakes of e-discovery have transformed early case assessment into a data management exercise. The substantial expense of preservation, collection and review in the e-discovery era and the risk of serious sanctions for any significant error in this process have shifted the focus from case assessment to data assessment, a change that threatens to subvert the essential role of trial counsel in early strategic analysis and planning. In a very real sense, trial counsel are now competing with both e-discovery vendors and specialized e-discovery counsel for the client's time and resources in the early stages of litigation. This tension presents a significant issue that can undermine the quality of your company's representation and likelihood of success in the litigation.
Almost every major e-discovery vendor now includes early case assessment tools as part of its product offerings and services. Some of these products provide powerful analytical tools that can enhance more traditional methods of early case assessment. However, the primary focus of most of these products is project management, not developing litigation strategy, and the data these tools provide can become a distraction from learning the substantive issues in the case. This problem can be magnified by the increasing role of specialized “e-discovery counsel” who are not part of the trial team and whose sole focus is managing the litigation hold and discovery process. Because e-discovery counsel are typically from the same firm as your company's trial counsel, you may reasonably expect that your e-discovery counsel understands trial counsel's litigation strategy and is working toward the same goals. In some cases, however, e-discovery counsel may be little more than project managers whose paramount goal is protecting the firm from liability for e-discovery malpractice.
In-house counsel may unwittingly contribute to the problem by diverting attention and resources away from substantive case evaluation. One of the many unfortunate consequences of both the spate of e-discovery sanctions cases and the expense of electronic data preservation is that many in-house counsel are now almost obsessively concerned with litigation hold issues. Accordingly, at the commencement of litigation, they may focus on the issues being addressed by e-discovery counsel and e-discovery vendors. Overworked in-house lawyers only have a limited amount of time to devote to any single litigation matter, and they may spend so much time talking with e-discovery counsel that there is no time left for trial counsel. What should be the most pressing issue at hand—developing a strategy to win the case—is lost in a discussion about data management.
Cases are won by identifying clear litigation objectives and then building a litigation plan that is focused on achieving those goals. When early case assessment instead becomes early data assessment, your company's litigation team has put the cart before the horse, and despite a flurry of activity, your company's case will be going nowhere.
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