5 ways to overcome common e-discovery project management woes
I recently met with a client who sharedvented reallyhow woefully unsuccessful she has been in securing a competent e-discovery vendor.
May 24, 2013 at 04:00 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
I recently met with a client who shared—vented really—how woefully unsuccessful she has been in securing a competent e-discovery vendor. A number of recent matters were fraught with disappointing vendor oversights. Most were due to poor communications.
Take, for example, status reports. In one case—a high-level, high-stress project that involved collecting a data from 30 custodians within 48 hours—there was essentially no communication from the vendor. At the end of the first day the firm had no idea where the project stood.
In another, the vendor's project manager dutifully sent email updates with lengthy discussions on each custodian, including the computer location, how the data that was secured and where the copied data was stored. That was way too much information. Reading through pages and pages of text to ascertain where the project stood was time-consuming and stressful. A simple, easy-to-read spreadsheet would have sufficed.
Finally, in a case that last lasted 18 months, the vendor's project manager changed three times. The client had to update and essentially retrain a new project manager every six months.
In each instance the client paid a premium rate for project management services and felt she didn't get what she paid for. It was, she concluded, the old death by 1,000 paper cuts storyline.
We've all heard stories like these or, even worse, experienced them firsthand. It would be nice if the world of e-discovery was built around a science and challenges like these could be solved in a quantitative fashion. Unfortunately, it is more of an art form.
An effective project management plan must be established before the project is underway and include real-time communications. This may seem like common sense, but it's often forgotten in the heat of battle. Here are some recommendations:
- Focus on what you need
Make vetting the project manager's background part of your due diligence. If it's a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act case in Asia, ask the project manager about his experience in foreign countries and how he deals with the laws that impact shipping electronically stored information out of the country. Ask whether there will be time zone issues and if so, how he intends to deal with them. Ensure that the project manager understands what's expected of him at the outset so you can resolve any potential conflicts beforehand.
- Look for Six Sigma/PMP certification
If your firm or company employs Six Sigma and/or PMP metrics, working with a project manager certified in these skill sets ensures the vendor will follow the same standardized project management processes you do. That, in turn, can enhance project communications right from the get-go.
- Discuss the case
When interviewing vendors, discussing the case strategy will help you separate the “order takers” from the “collaborators.” The project manager is the vendor's point guard, so she needs to understand the case and what you hope to achieve. You want a collaborator.
The circumstances surrounding a complicated 18 to 24 month case will likely change, so it's important that she understand your objectives at the outset. Tell the vendor where you expect to be at various points in time and be sure it knows in advance that if there's a problem that could keep you from hitting a certain mark, you expect to hear about it well before that date.
- Establish clear communications guidelines
Make sure the vendor knows how (and how often) you want project updates. I had one client tell me the senior partner needed only bullet points demonstrating where the project stood. An associate, on the other hand, needed much more detail, such as the number of corrupted documents we had found and the number of custodians who still hadn't responded to the legal hold order.
I recommend the traffic light approach. If a certain task—say notifying custodians—is proceeding as planned, it gets a green light. If a few custodians still haven't responded, a yellow. If a few key custodians are not cooperating—and that could affect a critical deadline—it gets a red. A partner may get upset, there may be some yelling, but in the end you avert major problems.
- Ensure meaningful collaboration
The e-discovery process is fraught with challenges. When a major issue arises, the client-vendor relationship has to be strong. You may be dealing with a variety of documents, and some may be reviewed in a different manner. Some files will be password-protected, while others will be corrupted, all of which affects the way (and how quickly) the documents are reviewed.
If the vendor only has two days to gather the data, it must keep the client informed via real-time communications. That requires a strong, collaborative effort involving both the client and the vendor. Addressing as many details as possible before e-discovery begins will minimize communications problems and reduce the stress of an already intense situation.
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 AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Trending Stories
- 1Troutman Pepper, Claiming Ex-Associate's Firing Was Performance Related, Seeks Summary Judgment in Discrimination Suit
- 2Law Firm Fails to Get Punitive Damages From Ex-Client
- 3Over 700 Residents Near 2023 Derailment Sue Norfolk for More Damages
- 4Decision of the Day: Judge Sanctions Attorney for 'Frivolously' Claiming All Nine Personal Injury Categories in Motor Vehicle Case
- 5Second Judge Blocks Trump Federal Funding Freeze
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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