Take Control of Your Quality Control
Examining the impacts of poor quality control on the key parties involved in e-discovery, and some of the steps that can help resolve or improve quality.
November 16, 2015 at 06:14 AM
6 minute read
A famous old saying tells us “you get what you pay for.” It proves itself to be true over and over in our modern world, even in the world of electronic discovery. In fact, that was the very excuse offered by an e-discovery service provider when we identified and raised a series of mistakes it made. After discussing our concerns about a string of incidents marked by poor quality, it was suggested to us that, between competitive pricing, competing demands, and our high expectations, something had to give. In this case, the service provider failed to perform any quality control—at all—and blamed the mistakes on its low price tag, the implication being that our negotiation of lower pricing and deadline expectations led to the inevitable reduction (or in this case, elimination) of quality control measures.
Needless to say, that conversation left us speechless and incredibly concerned. It left us with a challenge we undoubtedly had to resolve. It also begged the question, is it true we received what we paid for?
The answer is, of course not. Our client paid for top-notch services, and this was nowhere near that. Yet, this seems to be an increasing problem. Despite this being an ever-changing, growing, and fast-paced industry that increasingly demands more for less—and needs it all yesterday—it remains hard for us to understand how lack of any quality control can ever be an acceptable outcome.
This content has been archived.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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Court of Appeals Clarifies Parental Status
- 2Critical Mass With Law.com’s Amanda Bronstad: Third Circuit Hears Post-Purdue Arguments in Boy Scouts Case, Lead Prosecutor in Tom Girardi Trial Joins Edelson
- 3Standing on Less Shaky Ground: 'Guthrie' Decision Impact on NY Wage and Hour Matters
- 4Lingering Questions at Supreme Court About Climate Change Litigation Need Resolution
- 5The First Amendment on Trial: Factors That Influence Juror Receptivity
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