Building Blocks for Efficiently Handling Structured Data in E-Discovery
When tackled strategically, leveraging structured data (i.e., databases) can increase e-discovery efficiency and provide valuable information about document sets that might otherwise be invisible.
September 16, 2015 at 09:04 AM
7 minute read
To attorneys, the mention of structured data could bring forth feelings of indifference, confusion, anxiety, frustration and other mixed emotions. For some, the task of simply understanding the nuances between structured and unstructured data can be a daunting endeavor. That said, there is a wealth of information about many data sets living as structured data (i.e., data residing in databases—think tables and fields, not documents) within a variety of systems. When tackled strategically and with the right approach, leveraging structured data can increase e-discovery efficiency and provide valuable information about document sets that might otherwise be invisible or lost.
As an example, consider a product liability suit that involves collection, analysis and review from massive data repositories, including product quality assessments, compliance reports, regulatory reporting systems, and other documents that reside in a variety of databases or systems within an organization. In these instances, counsel is faced with a data set of hundreds of thousands of documents—hundreds of gigabytes of data—that need to be reviewed. Traditionally, counsel approaches these data sets by using keyword searching to locate and collect the potentially relevant data for review. However, by leveraging structured data from those systems as the lens through which to look at the documents and data, attorneys can identify if the relevant product issue or defect has a unique identifier (e.g., a certain code, ID number or other classifier that may even be constant across the enterprise). If so, rather than using keywords that might be under and/or over-inclusive, the team can query the structured data identifier to find all of the records and underlying documents associated with that product or issue.
Counsel can further refine this methodology to find specific date ranges, metadata of relevance, document title or category hits or other clues to unlock potentially relevant information from within the data set. Counsel can use this process to exclude documents from the data set as well, and potentially reduce the overall review set—which results in saved time and money for attorneys and their clients. This type of analysis can be particularly useful in industries that rely heavily on enterprise-wide system integration, including financial services, insurance, health-care and manufacturing.
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 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
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: With KPMG's Proposed Entry, Arizona's Liberalized Legal Market is Getting Interesting
- 2Womble Bond Dickinson Adds New Leaders as Merger Is Completed
- 3Family's Disability Discrimination Suit Cleared to Go Forward Against Six Flags
- 4Turning Over Legal Tedium to AI Requires Lots of Unglamorous Work on Front End
- 5Appellate Division Rejects Third Circuit Interpretation of NJ Law, Says No Arbitration for Insurance Fraud
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