Five Cost Saving Measures for E-Discovery
Tired of paying more than you have to for e-discovery? These simple steps can cut your costs and can be implemented without much effort.
January 02, 2018 at 08:00 AM
5 minute read
No one wants to pay more for anything than they have to, especially e-discovery. Here are some cost saving tips to consider.
1. Size Matters: The size of your data set affects three different costs. First, when processing data, vendors usually charge one price for importing data into the processing tool (the “in” charge) and another, higher price for the data exported from the tool (the “out” charge).
The “in” charge usually includes de-duplication, de-NISTing, date and search term filtering and is based on the uncompressed gigabyte (“GB”) size. If you collect a pst in a zip file that is 5 GB compressed, the vendor will extract the pst from the zip file, thereby uncompressing it. This can greatly increase, even double or triple, your gigabyte size and therefore, your cost. So, it is important to consider the uncompressed size for budgeting purposes.
Once the data has completed processing, apply as many filters as you can prior to export since the “out” size will be everything you export for review. Date filters and key word searches are common—you may also consider filtering out certain file types and email domains.
2. Keep 'Em Separated: Once you have your set for review, control the settings on export to keep the GB size down. Export emails either in .mht format or export as .msg files without the attachments inside them. If you export emails as straight .msg files, you are exporting the attachments twice—once as separate records as part of the family, and then again inside the native .msg file.
This raises the cost in three different ways. First, it inflates the size of the export, for which you are bring charged by the GB. Second, once the documents are loaded, you will be paying monthly hosting fees on the larger GB size. Third, if you apply analytics (ex. clustering, threading, near-duplication), you will be paying more since your data set will be larger and this is also usually a per GB charge.
It is important to discuss these options with the vendor up front so you don't end up being charged double for the attachments. Also note that not all processing tools can export in mht format or remove the attachments from inside .msg files so make sure you are dealing with a vendor that can accommodate this request.
3. Keep 'Em Together: Do not extract or export inline images, which are usually those logos and .gif files that you find in email footers. Exporting inline images as separate records will blow up the size of your database.
In addition, if you are paying for managed services with a per document charge for review, these will usually count as a “document”. So for every email with a logo, you will be paying double. Even if you tag them as not responsive, the inline images become unwieldy when you are preparing for depositions and trial, or just setting up searches that include family members. If these inline images and the associated emails are deemed responsive, then you will pay double for tiffing and bates numbering for production as well. Best practice is just to leave them inside the emails.
4. Threading: It's Sew Nice: Propose using email threading to review and produce only the most inclusive emails in a chain. Email threading can cut the review population down by 10-20 percent, which can result in substantial savings on review and production costs. There are fewer documents to review which cuts down on reviewer hours. There are fewer documents to ultimately produce, so you save on tiffing and production costs, and there are fewer privilege documents to log.
If the other side does the same, you will have fewer documents to review from their production to prepare your case. It is a win-win for everyone.
5. “Click of a Button” Privilege Logs: Try to negotiate the ability to produce an automated privilege log. Creating a privilege log creation can be one of the most expensive tasks of discovery. It takes approximately 90 percent less time to create an “automated log.” To create an automated log, you can just produce the metadata for the privilege documents, such as author/to/from/cc/bcc/date/file name/subject. The only thing that needs to be manually reviewed is the file name and subject fields to make sure that they do not contain privilege. This is much faster than writing long descriptions about the contents of a document.
These are all simple ways to cut your costs that can be implemented without much effort.
Partner Anne McCray and Counsel Cristin Traylor are two of the founding members of McGuireWoods' Discovery Counsel Services group and focus their practices on all aspects of e-discovery, litigation preparedness and information governance.
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 AllTrending Stories
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