Our Insights on eDiscovery

As today’s document collections are almost entirely electronic in a format used by the native application (i.e., “native files”), it has become more commonplace to produce those original native files to opposing counsel in eDiscovery. Producing the native files saves costs in converting the files to be produced to an image format (either TIFF or PDF) before production. And, for the recipients of a production, receiving native files enables them to also receive the metadata associated with those files (as it is contained within the files themselves). However, it seems to “upset the legal apple cart” when attorneys have to contemplate applying Bates numbers to native files.

The document review effort is the litigation team’s first in-depth exposure to the client’s electronic documents. The review staff will have more exposure to a broader range of documents than anyone else on the team, at least in the beginning of the case. When you are using contract reviewers, they will go away when the review is completed. You don’t want to lose what they’ve learned when the project is over, so you should take some steps to use their knowledge. Here are two things you can do.

In the last blog post, we talked about steps you can take to ensure high-quality, consistent work from a contract review staff. There is one more, very important thing you should do: keep the staff motivated. There is no question that a motivated, content staff will produce better work than a staff that is indifferent. Here are a few things you can do.

Today’s thought leader is Deidre Paknad. Deidre is President & CEO of PSS Systems, an IBM Company. Deidre is widely credited with having conceived of and launched the first commercial applications for legal holds, collections and retention management in 2004. A well-known thought leader in the legal and information governance domain, Deidre founded the Compliance, Governance and Oversight Council (CGOC), a professional community on retention and preservation that analyst firm IDC labeled a “think tank.” She has been a member of several Sedona working groups since 2005 and leads the EDRM Information Management Reference Model (IMRM) working group. Deidre is a seasoned entrepreneur and executive with 20 years’ experience applying technology to poor-functioning business processes to reduce cost and risk. Prior to PSS, she helped Certus launch its Sarbanes Oxley software solution. Deidre previously founded and was CEO of CoVia Technologies from 1996 to 2000, where she was inducted into the Smithsonian Institution for innovation in 1999 and again in 2000.

The most common problem with work product done by a group is inconsistent work – which means that some of the work has been done wrong. This is a problem, however, that can be avoided. Of course there will always be some inconsistencies, but there are steps that you can take and procedures that you can follow that will minimize inconsistencies and result in high-quality work. Let’s go over those.

Today’s thought leader is Jack Halprin. As Vice President, eDiscovery and Compliance with Autonomy, Jack serves as internal and external legal subject matter expert for best practices and defensible processes around litigation, electronic discovery, legal hold, and compliance issues. He speaks frequently on enterprise legal risk management, compliance, and eDiscovery at industry events and seminars, and has authored numerous articles on eDiscovery, legal hold, social media, and knowledge management. He is actively involved in The Sedona Conference, ACC, and Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM). With a BA in Chemistry from Yale University, a JD from the University of California-Los Angeles, and certifications from the California, Connecticut, Virginia and Patent Bars, Mr. Halprin has varied expertise that lends itself well to both the legal and technical aspects of electronic discovery collection and preservation.