Blame Expanding Regulations for Your Expensive E-Discovery Bill
While e-discovery experts see a steady decline in data processing and hosting fees, stiffer regulations and protocol disputes are driving up review costs.
January 10, 2020 at 12:30 PM
3 minute read
A new year with heightened data regulations will likely usher in ballooning document review and lawyer spend for e-discovery. Conversely, a commoditized data hosting industry will likely mean relatively cheap hosting prices will continue.
E-discovery experts noted e-discovery and its prices don't evolve in a vacuum. They pointed to the General Data Protection Regulation and other data privacy regulations as factors fueling document reviewers' costs.
"Cross-border matters are growing in number and complexity, and often the collection and review for these matters must be conducted in-country or even within the company's offices," wrote FTI Consulting's global technology CEO Sophie Ross in an email. "As a result, the cost of finding and recruiting global professionals—from Hong Kong to Brazil—who are experts in the latest analytics platforms and advanced, defensible workflows is increasing."
BDO technology and business transformation practice managing director Brandon Lee noted the GDPR, California Consumer Privacy Act and other regulations require additional effort early in the discovery process to identify data and its correct transfer requirements.
Besides regulations, attorney disputes over technology-assisted review protocols also inflates the document review cost.
Redgrave partner Christine Payne noted some have argued that disputes between plaintiffs and defendants over what is acceptable TAR protocols cost a considerable amount of money for clients and drive up review and overall e-discovery costs.
"The attorney time to fight over the metrics you are going to use with TAR, the parameters, how the systems work, who gets access to the inputs, is very expensive," she said. "Any cost-saving with the product itself evaporates with the attorney time needed."
But one pain point e-discovery clients shouldn't feel when they are billed is data hosting.
"Although the costs for processing and hosting [data] are still an element of e-discovery costs, we are starting to see those costs reduce partially because of consolidation of companies in the industry," BDO's Lee said.
Other e-discovery experts shared Lee's view, but also noted the higher volume of data companies are collecting may negate any potential cost-savings.
Still, FTI's Ross also noted that corporate clients are adopting advanced analytics to reduce the data set used during the e-discovery process. Additionally, more corporate legal departments are implementing information governance programs for better budget predictability and transparency, she said.
What's more, industry observers also note more corporate clients are using fewer providers for e-discovery, which is driving down overall e-discovery spend.
"We are seeing an uptick in what we consider managed services. No longer are corporations [partially] sending out aspects of e-discovery to a variety of vendors," Lee said. He added that the shift will impact the vendor landscape.
"You are going to see more consolidation in that and an opportunity for managed services to be utilized to address costs," he 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
© 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
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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