Most Organizations Standardize, But Don't Enforce E-Discovery Processes
Exterro and EDRM's 2020 E-Discovery Maturity Analysis suggests a strong link between an organization's e-discovery tech investment and its litigation load.
April 15, 2020 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
It would seem that e-discovery maturity hasn't changed all that much in a year. Exterro and EDRM released their 2020 E-discovery Maturity Analysis in March, and the findings indicate that despite the implementation of new privacy regulations such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), many companies are still tailoring an information governance or e-discovery posture that is proportional to their individual risk of litigation.
Whereas the 2019 survey collected responses from 218 organizations across various industries, the 2020 analysis broadened that scope to 632 respondents from companies with between 200 and more than 10,000 employees. Even with a larger sample size in the mix, most organizations surveyed operate at a level the Maturity Analysis designates as "fair"—meaning that standardized e-discovery processes are in place, but not enforced.
For comparison. the lower end of the performance spectrum of "very poor" for organizations that are reactive with no e-discovery process in place. The upper echelon of "excellent" is reserved for organizations that are proactive with an actively managed process in place. So why are most of the organizations surveyed winding up in the middle road?
Michael Hamilton, director of marketing for Exterro, believes many organizations likely base the sophistication of their e-discovery programs on the severity of their litigation needs. "What we see is a correlation between the more litigious industries. [They] seem to have a more mature e-discovery process just because they have a higher frequency of litigation, which means the more they can standardize their processes, the more efficient they can be," he said.
Competition for the most litigious industry may have grown steeper this year. The 2019 analysis designated the pharmaceutical and finance sectors as the two industries with the most e-discovery maturity, but the spike in respondents seen by the 2020 report likely shifted those rankings. Per the 2020 report, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and healthcare are the top three most mature industries, while aerospace, real estate and education made up the bottom of the list.
Just how that maturity—or lack thereof—is playing out a granular level within an organization's e-discovery process may have a lot to do with how it collects or retains data. For example, the Maturity Analysis shows that 73% of companies with less than 1,000 employees have a set process for collecting data from social media. This stands in contrast to the 81% of organizations with 1,001 to 10,000 employees or 84% of organizations with 10,000 or more employees who have a social media collection plan.
It's possible that smaller companies operating on equally modest budgets may be more reluctant to spend money on the tech required to extract social media data. "Social and instant messaging data is expensive, right? And you have to the right tools in place to do it effectively," Hamilton said.
By contrast, only 78% of organizations with more than 10,000 employees had a process to deal with bring-your-own-device (BYOD), or personal devices their workers brought from home. Companies with less than 1,001 to 10,000 employees seemed a little more prepared for that reality, with 85% having a process in place.
However, it's possible that bigger organizations are circumnavigating the problem of BYOD altogether with other countermeasures, such as portals that limit the access mobile devices have to certain information or apps that employees have to use in order to send messages or emails. "I think that could be a reason, that [bigger companies] have a more robust security infrastructure when it comes to mobile devices," Hamilton said.
Still, even industries with a high degree of e-discovery maturity still seem to be lagging behind when it comes to training, which is consistent with the findings of last year's analysis as well. The pharmaceuticals industry, for example, scored a 3.81 out of 5 rating for overall e-discovery maturity, but only a 1.64 in training. Hamilton pointed out it may not be cost effective for organizations to provide employees with training if they already have designated staff like a director of e-discovery on hand.
"Maybe training isn't as vital to those people because you don't need someone to wear multiple hats," Hamilton 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
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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