E-Discovery Is Ruining Litigation and Other Information Age Myths
An attempt to dispel three great myths about technology-assisted review and to encourage counsel to use this technology in complex litigation discovery reviews.
April 30, 2015 at 10:00 AM
9 minute read
As a frequent presenter on the topic of e-discovery, I am often approached by a member of the audience at the conclusion of the seminar. Typically, the fellow attorney listened intently throughout the session and generally seemed to “get it”—in other words, he or she recognizes that 99 percent of complex litigations involve e-discovery. Throughout the presentation, the lawyer nodded in agreement during my remarks concerning e-discovery's ethical mandates and our sophisticated clients' increasing demand for litigation efficiencies. Yet, now, in the emptying conference room, my colleague's demeanor shifts from agreeable to slightly agitated. Within moments after introducing himself, the lawyer shakes his head and bluntly states, “I believe e-discovery is ruining litigation.” My response, a simple “Why?” most often provokes one of three responses: 1) “There is too much data and too little time”; 2) “Discovery costs are crippling and the number of discovery gigabytes contribute as much to the decision to litigate as do the merits”; or 3) “Nowadays, only large firms can handle complex litigation because they have the manpower.”
There is no arguing that the Information Age provides challenges for litigators. Our clients are creating and storing information at an unfathomable pace. Simply locating relevant documents can be a challenge, as the information now resides in multiple places in a multitude of forms and there is too much of it. The volume of electronically stored information (ESI) and liberal discovery standards cause stress for most lawyers who do not consider themselves e-savvy and yet must answer to clients' more-for-less challenge and demands for fixed document discovery budgets.
True, lawyers can counsel their clients on prelitigation data minimization to reduce information hoarding and lower information expenses, however, until information governance protocols are implemented and enforced, massive discovery datasets will continue to be the norm. In sum, the volume, variety and velocity of discovery data cause enormous tension between the lawyers' obligations to discover and disclose relevant information and the clients' understandable fear of unbridled cost and inefficiencies. Something must change.
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 AllCould the E-Discovery Job Market Undergo a 'Great Recalibration' in 2024?
4 minute readSony's Sharpie Redaction Gaffe Is Egregious, But Underscores Common E-Discovery Gaps
4 Ways Generative AI-Produced Deepfakes Are Impacting the Legal Industry
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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