E-Discovery May Not Be Place For Small Firms to Cut Costs
The 'E-discovery in the Cloud: From Office 365 to Social Media' panel at the ABA Tech Show examined how critical the human element is in e-discovery.
March 01, 2019 at 10:26 AM
3 minute read
E-discovery is not the place cheap out, according to the “E-discovery in the Cloud: From Office 365 to Social Media” panel that took place on Thursday at the ABA Tech Show.
While there are a variety of new tools on the market to help smaller firms take on the e-discovery process without incurring the costs associated with outside specialists, the results are still dependent on having the right person behind the wheel.
“It's difficult to negotiate 'I want to go back and give you what I should have given you the first time'” said panelist Hampton Coley, director of practice technology and discovery services for Canon Discovery Services.
The panel focused specifically on Microsoft's Office 365, which offers advanced discovery tools that include email threading, near duplicate and theme detection and technology assisted review (TAR), among others.
TAR was one example of where small firms may have to consider whether having an advanced tool is still useful in the absence of adequate manpower to review the results. The answer could change from client-to-client and case-to-case.
“That's another good question to ask someone: How much is a case worth?” Coley said.
He pointed out that the usefulness of any collection tool is entirely dependent on the defensibility of the way that data is collected, culled and produced. The problem is that there are a number of areas that could potentially trip up even the most well-intentioned practitioner along the way.
Metadata, for example, is non-standard and can take a variety of different forms. “There can be hundreds, hundreds of metadata fields and attorneys typically only want to understand five or ten,” Coley said.
He also touched on the ephemeral nature of social media data where something can exist one minute and be gone the next — unless it finds second life as a screenshot somewhere. Per Coley, screenshots have proven to be admissible in court and might be a e-discovery practitioner's only recourse if the original post or data has been deleted from a platform.
Given all of these complications, he stressed the importance of considering whether the people who were assigned to search for e-discovery data had the proper training or experience. After all, the responsibility for what's turned over to opposing counsel will ultimately rest with the attorney. “The measure is you,” Coley said.
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
- 1Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
- 2'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
- 3Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
- 4These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
- 5'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
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