Structured Data and E-Discovery: When Is It Time to Call in the Experts?
Not every litigated case involves structured data, but for those that do, getting the e-discovery process right can make or break your case.
April 12, 2019 at 07:00 AM
5 minute read
As the demand for e-discovery grows, so too does the challenge of collecting and preserving digital information—including unstructured and structured data. Unstructured data, such as Word documents, emails and text files are usually straightforward to collect, especially with the use of an e-discovery team that can review, search and process documents in a manner that is repeatable and defensible in court.
However, structured data, such as a CRM database or data stored in proprietary software, can be much more complicated and can derail the e-discovery process if not managed carefully. For starters, there is often an enormous amount of data to sift through and it may be difficult to determine what data is relevant, how to best preserve and produce the data, or how to even go about viewing the data found in these structured formats!
Despite these hurdles, structured data that is correctly collected, preserved and analyzed in a meaningful and legal manner can play a key role in the outcome of a case. But, it's essential to get your structured data e-discovery process right from the get-go.
|Identify Issues Early
Whether you are dealing with structured or unstructured data, there are four key questions you need to answer at the onset of any case to help you devise an appropriate e-discovery strategy:
- Who is involved in the discovery process?
- Where are the sources of information stored?
- What types of sources are they?
- How will you access and collect the data?
The answers to these questions will help determine your next steps. In particular, it will help you determine whether you have structured data to collect and how complicated it will be to do so. It will also help you identify tasks you don't have the technical skills to do—such as how to access structured data in a cloud-based proprietary database or how to manage an enormous database and be able to extract the relevant data in a timely and repeatable manner.
If you identify areas of the e-discovery process that you may need help with, it's essential to engage expert help earlier rather than later. In complex litigation, it's usually a more costly effort to clean up issues after the fact. Accordingly, much time can be saved and extra expenses can often be avoided if you engage help prior to agreeing to an ESI order.
|Weigh Ethical Considerations
Another important concern in the e-discovery process is your ability to satisfy your ethical duty of competence. In California, the Standing Committee On Professional Responsibility and Conduct of the California State Bar stated in Formal Opinion No. 2015-193 that an attorney may violate ethical duties of competence by failing to understand and perform specific e-discovery tasks.
In a 2012 update to Comment 8 of Model Rule 1.1, the American Bar Association also declared that lawyers have a duty of competency in regards to technology. States have followed suit, with 36 states now recognizing that attorneys have an ethical duty to be competent in any technology they use as well as understanding what technology their clients use.
Because of the complexity of large discovery such as structured data, having an expert in structured data e-discovery can ensure that you meet your legal and ethical obligations as an attorney.
|Benefits of Structured Data Expertise
Employing an e-discovery expert in structured data can not only keep you out of ethical hot water, it can also help facilitate a better litigation strategy. An e-discovery expert will be able to understand what is involved in extracting and analyzing structured data and can strategize with you on timelines to ensure that the data you collect is done in a repeatable manner that will hold up in court.
Equally important, an expert can help you analyze this data to help you deliver a win. One example of this is our work with a national transportation firm. As part of the e-discovery process, we helped the company extract structured data from a proprietary database. Once collected, we performed extensive analyses to create custom demonstratives showing truckers' routes using GPS logs and time stamps. This work was critical to the court denying the drivers' claims and ending two class action suits that sought a total of $122 million.
If you've been ignoring the analysis of structured data or not using it to its full potential in your e-discovery process, it's time to rethink your strategy. Structured data, when collected and analyzed in a meaningful manner, can lead to discoveries that can make or break a case.
Aaron Vick is Chief Strategy Officer for Cicayda, a legal technology firm that combines powerful cloud-based eDiscovery and Legal Hold software with analytics and legal expertise. Early in his career, Aaron was part of the Rocket Science team that designed the first document research product, CaseLogistix, for the legal discovery market. After CaseLogistix's acquisition by Thomson Reuters, Aaron played an integral part in developing its Litigation Product Specialists team.
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
- 1Daniel Habib to Serve as Next Attorney-in-Charge of NY Federal Defender Appeals Unit
- 2Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege in the Modern Age of Communications
- 3High-Profile Sidley M&A Partner Heads to Covington
- 4Stars and Gripes: Firms Need a 'Superstar Culture' to Crack the U.S. Market
- 5BCLP Exploring Merger Prospects as Profitability Lags, Partnership Shrinks
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