Technology: In-house e-discovery capabilities
Many in-house legal professionals face the "make or buy" decision every day: which matters or parts of matters will they handle in-house, and which matters will they seek external assistance on.
July 12, 2013 at 05:00 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Many in-house legal professionals face the “make or buy” decision every day: which matters or parts of matters will they handle in-house, and which matters will they seek external assistance on. Decisions often include assessing risk, magnitude, impact, talent and staffing mix (internal and external), required response time, availability of tools and technology, desire for efficiency and consistency, and cost effectiveness. Depending on the matter and jurisdiction, privilege and defensibility considerations may also be part of the risk and overall decision matrix.
Companies in heavily regulated industries often have dedicated in-house resources for handling portions of their e-discovery workflow. Roles can range from serving as touch points within the company to performing (or managing) end-to-end e-discovery in-house.
Striking the right balance is key, and the right answer on approach will likely vary from company to company.
Five Key Considerations
For those companies interested in exploring technology options to assist with performing the collections portion of the e-discovery workflow in-house, key considerations include:
- Data sources: what are they and where do they reside
- Identify right tool for right job: matching data sources to tool capabilities
- Integration and data security: how will the technology integrate with other systems and meet security requirements
- Subject matter expert: who will own and defend the process
- Proof of concept and support: testing capabilities and ongoing support are critical elements to move from concept to implementation and execution
Data Sources
Technology and tools abound when it comes to e-discovery. It can be daunting to navigate the complex marketplace to determine which tools best match a company's situation. A key first step is to understand the company's data sources and determine where they reside. With this understanding, companies can then prioritize needs, develop a collections strategy, and identify tools to best match their needs.
Questions to ask include:
- What are the company's data sources?
- What types of repositories or devices are you collecting from (e.g., email, document management systems, SharePoint sites, company-hosted social media, cloud storage, server shares, iPads, smartphones, etc.)?
- Which repositories or devices are you most commonly going to for data collection?
- Are collections mainly inside or outside of the U.S?
- From past experience, can you prioritize among data sources and repositories to help focus on which tool(s) might best be suited to address collection needs?
Right Tool for the Right Job
In addition to understanding the data sources and common repositories for data, it is also important to understand what the company's collections strategy will be. Will the company seek to collect everything? Will the company seek to use search terms and/or to collect in a more focused way?
Also, important to consider is the company's desired collections capabilities, including whether the collection most often needs to be:
- Forensically sound: copied files are exact matches and metadata values don't change; can authenticate
- Forensic image: bit-for-bit copy of a hard drive or server disk (bit-by-bit copy of a hard drive which will collect slack and fragmented disk space)
- Targeted collection: using key words, dates, certain file/folder locations
- Self-collection: conducted by the custodian; can be riskier, raising assertions of “fox guarding the hen house”
As with any situation where tools are matched to task, understanding what the company most frequently wants and needs will help the company focus on which tool makes the most sense.
Integration and Data Security
Consider how the technology will integrate with the company's systems and data security measures so that information that needs to be collected can be collected using the tool. Ask questions about how the technology interfaces with existing technology systems, and understand any limitations or special measures that may need to be implemented.
Some questions to consider include:
- Will the new tool be able to plug into the company's various IT systems and platforms?
- Are there data types or areas within the company's information systems that are highly protected and secure, and can the collections technology traverse those areas?
- Does the company have a dedicated and secure storage area for collected data?
- How will back-up practices be implemented or apply?
- Will collections practices be integrated with broader information governance practices?
Subject Matter Experts
In addition to technology considerations, there are also people considerations. Consider the increased demands on human capital when bringing collections workflow processes in-house, and plan for them. An e-discovery collections playbook that identifies who uses the system, who is responsible for what aspects of the system, and key steps in the collections process can help bring consistency and accountability, and help enhance defensibility of the process. Also consider the potential need for an external partner who is familiar with the in-house systems that can supplement the collection staffing needs at times of high demand.
Another important consideration as part of the company's efforts to manage the collections workflow in-house is selecting the “subject matter expert,” or in-house professional who will own and defend the process. This person may potentially be called upon as a 30(b)(6) witness, and should be someone who understands the in-house collection process as well as the company's infrastructure, information technology assets and security.
Proof of Concept and Support
Ask for the opportunity to test and evaluate. Will the tool function as promised and do what you need it to do? Ask about customer support, for the integration phase and beyond, and confirm that it meets your needs and expectations. Validate the test results.
In addition, identify in-house resources who will partner with the technology vendor's customer support. Ensure that key in-house players receive training on the technology and e-discovery collections playbook.
Closing Insights
Bringing the collections portion of the e-discovery workflow in-house can be very empowering, and can result in efficiencies and cost savings. Selecting the technology tool that best suits the company's needs is an important part of the process. The above considerations highlight some key things to consider; as with any new technology selection, implementation and roll-out, there are many additional factors to consider as well.
At a minimum, know your data and systems, understand the sources you typically need to collect from, assess how various technology options will integrate with your company's systems and best help you execute on your company's collections strategies, and consider the people issues. Integrate policies and practices with broader corporate information governance practices, and communicate and train people on them to help best position the company to succeed in implementing defensible in-house collections strategies.
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 AllBig Tech Is Cozying Up to President Trump. Here's Why Their Lawyers Are Cautiously Optimistic
Starbucks Hands New CLO Hefty Raise, Says He Fosters 'Environment of Courage and Joy'
Internal Whistleblowing Surged Globally in 2024, So Why Were US Numbers Flat?
6 minute readMeta Workers Aren't of One Mind on Company's Retreat From DEI, Fact-Checking
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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