Electronic discovery is often viewed singularly through the requirements of litigation, investigations and regulatory response. Further, e-discovery workflow is something to be addressed only when a party “reasonably anticipates litigation” or has an analogous triggering event.
But is that the right approach? Is it cost-effective and efficient to view e-discovery as its own independent process? Is there a way to enhance the preservation and collection processes to obviate the need for over-collection and the associated costs? Or a way to relegate preservation and collection to a subtask of a process that inherently benefits the business? Put another way, has the electronic discovery tail been wagging the information governance dog?
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
