Dissecting the uses of modern e-discovery software
Tools which specialize in data preservation and collection, early case assessment, document review and technology assisted review have made e-discovery more manageable and far more cost effective.
February 21, 2014 at 03:00 AM
11 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Discovery was once a relatively straightforward process. Interrogatories, document exchanges and depositions took place based on information found in accordion files or banker boxes. There were exceptions, of course, and some cases required sifting through a warehouse of documents, but the process was still fairly simple. Once the age of ubiquitous corporate computing and electronically stored information appeared, however, electronic discovery (e-discovery) became anything but straightforward. Electronically stored information became so easy to create that the sheer number of electronic documents began to far outweigh the number of physical documents that were ever created. As a result, e-discovery has typically been complicated, voluminous and, at times, downright difficult.
E-discovery requires a fair amount of technology to combat the complications electronic data has introduced. Time saving techniques such as optical character recognition, culling, similarity analysis, email threading and technology assisted review have greatly reduced the burdens inherent with e-discovery. These modern tools have helped us navigate millions of virtual documents accessed by inside counsel and outside counsel alike. Such techniques have started to make the process manageable again. There are so many choices in e-discovery tools and techniques, however, that it is often difficult to navigate the waters of modern e-discovery software.
Data preservation and collection
There are a number of mature software packages which focus on data preservation and collection. Depending on your environment's network architecture, data can be collected in a central location from email and document sources. It is important to evaluate your particular organization's needs, but it is best to select software which can be run by an internal security or e-discovery group and supported by the company's IT department. Investigate software titles which support unattended collections and full chain of custody options.
Early case assessment
Once data has been properly preserved and collected, it is often advantageous to cull the data down to a more reasonable size for eventual review. The fewer documents you have to review, the less time and money the e-discovery process will take. While data culling can sometimes be achieved at the time of collection itself, early case assessment software (ECA) can help remove extraneous files such as system files, emails past date range or documents that do not contain certain keywords. Consider ECA software or services which are Web-based and accessible to outside counsel to assist in the culling process. It is not necessary to own ECA software outright, as long as you can find a trusted service provider to host your data and provide a solid ECA platform for you to use.
Document review platforms
After the ECA process, document review needs to begin in earnest. Reviewing files for responsiveness, privilege or categorization around certain causes of action will often be performed by a mix of inside and outside counsel. In today's modern age of being “always on” and available over the internet, it is best to work with document review technology which is Web-based and accessible wherever work takes you. A Web-based solution will allow you to access your e-discovery system whether you are in the office, on the road or visiting your outside counsel's headquarters. Look for systems which support a variety of Internet browsers and platforms, such as smartphones, tablets and Mac computers. It is likely that you will need to access your e-discovery technology when you only have mobile or home computing access, and a Web based solution will give you options. Again, it is not necessary to own your own document review system as long as you are hosting such a platform with a trusted service provider.
Technology assisted review
Human-led document review is often one of the largest costs surrounding e-discovery. Due to the large volume of documents involved during document review and the relatively high cost of human reviewers, it is clear that any technology which can reduce the number of human reviewers can provide a substantial cost savings. Technology assisted review (TAR) is software which enables a small team of human reviewers to review select documents, which are in turn used to train a computer application with “machine learning” algorithms to review all remaining documents automatically. Although met with early skepticism, TAR has become a court-tested and highly reliable alternative to human-led document review. TAR systems are often integrated directly into modern document review systems, which allows for an easy transition from TAR to human-led review and back again.
Unified e-discovery platforms
Early case assessment tools, document review platforms and technology assisted review have certainly improved the process of managing e-discovery data. One weakness, though, has been that each of these technologies was traditionally deployed with individual software packages. Data needed to be shifted from one software package to the next. It is best to work with e-discovery software, which offers all of these various technologies in a single, contiguous platform. By using just one platform you benefit from economies of scale, consistency of user interface and the ability to track security and data access throughout the process. Unfortunately, few technologies offer a truly unified e-discovery experience, so it is best to inquire with your technology department or outside service provider as to whether your technology platform is compliant.
Conclusion
Discovery, e-discovery in particular, can be a complicated and expensive part of any litigation. Technology has been developed to reduce these complexities and bring efficiencies back into the process. Tools which specialize in data preservation and collection, early case assessment, document review and technology assisted review have not only made e-discovery more manageable, but also far more cost effective than it was just five years ago. And while all of these technologies have become invaluable, managing and learning multiple, individual software packages can create its own inefficiencies. Consider a unified e-discovery platform which contains all, or many, of these functions to gain the most benefits in overall cost and efficiency.
Discovery was once a relatively straightforward process. Interrogatories, document exchanges and depositions took place based on information found in accordion files or banker boxes. There were exceptions, of course, and some cases required sifting through a warehouse of documents, but the process was still fairly simple. Once the age of ubiquitous corporate computing and electronically stored information appeared, however, electronic discovery (e-discovery) became anything but straightforward. Electronically stored information became so easy to create that the sheer number of electronic documents began to far outweigh the number of physical documents that were ever created. As a result, e-discovery has typically been complicated, voluminous and, at times, downright difficult.
E-discovery requires a fair amount of technology to combat the complications electronic data has introduced. Time saving techniques such as optical character recognition, culling, similarity analysis, email threading and technology assisted review have greatly reduced the burdens inherent with e-discovery. These modern tools have helped us navigate millions of virtual documents accessed by inside counsel and outside counsel alike. Such techniques have started to make the process manageable again. There are so many choices in e-discovery tools and techniques, however, that it is often difficult to navigate the waters of modern e-discovery software.
Data preservation and collection
There are a number of mature software packages which focus on data preservation and collection. Depending on your environment's network architecture, data can be collected in a central location from email and document sources. It is important to evaluate your particular organization's needs, but it is best to select software which can be run by an internal security or e-discovery group and supported by the company's IT department. Investigate software titles which support unattended collections and full chain of custody options.
Early case assessment
Once data has been properly preserved and collected, it is often advantageous to cull the data down to a more reasonable size for eventual review. The fewer documents you have to review, the less time and money the e-discovery process will take. While data culling can sometimes be achieved at the time of collection itself, early case assessment software (ECA) can help remove extraneous files such as system files, emails past date range or documents that do not contain certain keywords. Consider ECA software or services which are Web-based and accessible to outside counsel to assist in the culling process. It is not necessary to own ECA software outright, as long as you can find a trusted service provider to host your data and provide a solid ECA platform for you to use.
Document review platforms
After the ECA process, document review needs to begin in earnest. Reviewing files for responsiveness, privilege or categorization around certain causes of action will often be performed by a mix of inside and outside counsel. In today's modern age of being “always on” and available over the internet, it is best to work with document review technology which is Web-based and accessible wherever work takes you. A Web-based solution will allow you to access your e-discovery system whether you are in the office, on the road or visiting your outside counsel's headquarters. Look for systems which support a variety of Internet browsers and platforms, such as smartphones, tablets and Mac computers. It is likely that you will need to access your e-discovery technology when you only have mobile or home computing access, and a Web based solution will give you options. Again, it is not necessary to own your own document review system as long as you are hosting such a platform with a trusted service provider.
Technology assisted review
Human-led document review is often one of the largest costs surrounding e-discovery. Due to the large volume of documents involved during document review and the relatively high cost of human reviewers, it is clear that any technology which can reduce the number of human reviewers can provide a substantial cost savings. Technology assisted review (TAR) is software which enables a small team of human reviewers to review select documents, which are in turn used to train a computer application with “machine learning” algorithms to review all remaining documents automatically. Although met with early skepticism, TAR has become a court-tested and highly reliable alternative to human-led document review. TAR systems are often integrated directly into modern document review systems, which allows for an easy transition from TAR to human-led review and back again.
Unified e-discovery platforms
Early case assessment tools, document review platforms and technology assisted review have certainly improved the process of managing e-discovery data. One weakness, though, has been that each of these technologies was traditionally deployed with individual software packages. Data needed to be shifted from one software package to the next. It is best to work with e-discovery software, which offers all of these various technologies in a single, contiguous platform. By using just one platform you benefit from economies of scale, consistency of user interface and the ability to track security and data access throughout the process. Unfortunately, few technologies offer a truly unified e-discovery experience, so it is best to inquire with your technology department or outside service provider as to whether your technology platform is compliant.
Conclusion
Discovery, e-discovery in particular, can be a complicated and expensive part of any litigation. Technology has been developed to reduce these complexities and bring efficiencies back into the process. Tools which specialize in data preservation and collection, early case assessment, document review and technology assisted review have not only made e-discovery more manageable, but also far more cost effective than it was just five years ago. And while all of these technologies have become invaluable, managing and learning multiple, individual software packages can create its own inefficiencies. Consider a unified e-discovery platform which contains all, or many, of these functions to gain the most benefits in overall cost and efficiency.
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 AllLatham, Kirkland Alums Land the Top GC Posts—Here's What It Means for Business Generation
10 minute readPolicy Wonks' Obsession: What Will Tuesday's Election Mean for FTC Firebrand Khan?
6 minute readAI Gives Legal Departments New Leverage to Demand Speed, Efficiency From Law Firms
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
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