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
© 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
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