Close
Enter your
text here

Review

eDiscovery Best Practices: What is “Reduping?”
 

As emails are sent out to multiple custodians, deduplication (or “deduping”) has become a common practice to eliminate multiple copies of the same email or file from the review collection, saving considerable review costs and ensuring consistency by not having different reviewers apply different responsiveness or privilege determinations to the same file (e.g., one copy of a file designated as privileged while the other is not may cause a privileged file to slip into the production set).  Deduping can be performed either across custodians in a case or within each custodian.

Everyone who works in electronic discovery knows what “deduping” is.  But how many of you know what “reduping” is?  Here’s the answer:

“Reduping” is the process of re-introducing duplicates back into the population for production after completing review.  There are a couple of reasons why a producing party may want to “redupe” the collection after review:

  • Deduping Not Requested by Receiving Party: As opposing parties in many cases still don’t conduct a meet and confer or discuss specifications for production, they may not have discussed whether or not to include duplicates in the production set.  In those cases, the producing party may choose to produce the duplicates, giving the receiving party more files to review and driving up their costs.  The attitude of the producing party can be “hey, they didn’t specify, so we’ll give them more than they asked for.”
  • Receiving Party May Want to See Who Has Copies of Specific Files: Sometimes, the receiving party does request that “dupes” are identified, but only within custodians, not across them.  In those cases, it’s because they want to see who had a copy of a specific email or file.  However, the producing party still doesn’t want to review the duplicates (because of increasing costs and the possibility of inconsistent designations), so they review a deduped collection and then redupe after review is complete.

Many review applications support the capability for reduping.  For example, FirstPass™, powered by Venio FPR™, suppresses the duplicates from review, but applies the same tags to the duplicates of any files tagged during first pass review.  When it’s time to export the collection, to either move the potentially responsive files on to linear review (in a product like OnDemand®) or straight to production, the user can decide at that time whether or not to export the dupes.  Those dupes have the same designations as the primary copies, ensuring consistency in handling them downstream.

So, what do you think?  Does your review tool support “reduping”?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Despite What NY Times Says, Lawyers Not Going Away
 

There was a TV commercial in the mid-80’s where a soap opera actor delivered the line “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV”.  Can you remember the product it was advertising (without clicking on the link)?  If so, you win the trivia award of the day!  😉

I’m a technologist who has been working in litigation support and eDiscovery for over twenty years.  If you’ve been reading eDiscovery Daily for awhile, you’ve probably noticed that I’ve written several posts regarding significant case law as it pertains to eDiscovery.  I often feel that I should offer a disclaimer before each of these posts saying “I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on the Web”.  As the disclaimer at the bottom of the page stipulates, these posts aren’t meant to provide legal advice and it is not my intention to do so, but merely to identify cases that may be of interest to our readers and I try to provide a basic recap of these cases and leave it at that.  As Clint Eastwood once said, “A man’s got to know his limitations”.

A few days ago, The New York Times published an article entitled Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software which discussed how, using ‘artificial intelligence, “e-discovery” software can analyze documents in a fraction of the time for a fraction of the cost’ (extraneous comma in the title notwithstanding).  The article goes on to discuss linguistic and sociological techniques for retrieval of relevant information and discusses how the Enron Corpus, available in a number of forms, including through EDRM, has enabled software providers to make great strides in analytical capabilities using this large base of data to use in testing.  It also discusses whether this will precipitate a march to the unemployment line for scores of attorneys.

A number of articles and posts since then have offered commentary as to whether that will be the case.  Technology tools will certainly reduce document populations significantly, but, as the article noted, “[t]he documents that the process kicks out still have to be read by someone”.  Not only that, the article still makes the assumption that people too often make with search technology – that it’s a “push a button and get your answer” approach to identifying relevant documents.  But, as has been noted in several cases and also here on this blog, searching is an iterative process where sampling the search results is recommended to confirm that the search maximizes recall and precision to the extent possible.  Who do you think is going to perform that sampling?  Lawyers – that’s who (working with technologists like me, of course!).  And, some searches will require multiple iterations of sampling and analysis before the search is optimized.

Therefore, while the “armies” of lawyers many not need near as many members of the infantry, they will still need plenty of corporals, sergeants, captains, colonels and generals.  And, for those entry-level reviewing attorneys that no longer have a place on review projects?  Well, we could always use a few more doctors on TV, right?  😉

So, what do you think?  Are you a review attorney that has been impacted by technology – positively or negatively?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Managing an eDiscovery Contract Review Team: Use the Team’s Knowledge

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:

  • Ask for summary memos:  Ask supervisors on the project to prepare a summary memo for each custodian.  To get good summary information you should provide specific instructions for the information you would like included.  You could, for example, ask for this information about each custodian:
    • A description of the types of documents in the collection (for example, letter, monthly reports, work sheets, and so on).
    • A description of the general topics that are covered.
    • An approximate date range of the documents in the custodian’s files.
    • A list of key individuals (and organizations) with whom the custodian frequently corresponds.
  • Interview the review team:  Meet periodically with the group.  Spend an hour at the end of a workday and interview them about what they are seeing in the collection.  If there are certain topics you are hoping to see covered in the documents, ask the team about them.  Likewise, if there are certain topics that you hope not to see, ask about those as well.  This type of exchange will serve three purposes:
    • It will give senior litigation team members useful information about the document collection.
    • It will be useful for review team members to learn about what other team members are seeing.
    • It’s great for team morale.  It really reinforces that their work is important and that their input is valuable.

What steps do you take to make use of what the review team learns in the document review?  Do you have suggestions you can share with us?

This concludes our blog series on Managing an eDiscovery Contract Review Team.  I hope you found it useful!

Please share any comments you have and let us know if you’d like to know more about an eDiscovery topic.

Managing an eDiscovery Contract Review Team: Keep the Staff Motivated
 

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:

  • Give them the big picture:  Let the review staff know how their work fits into the overall litigation process, how their work product will be used, and how important their contribution is to the case.
  • Keep them up-to-date on the status of the case:  Let them know what’s going on.  Tell them when case milestones have been met, when initial production deadlines have been met, and what the attorneys are doing.  
  • Have senior attorneys give them some attention:  Ask senior attorneys on the case to stop by periodically and speak to the group.  This, more than anything, will reinforce how important their work is to the case.
  • Give frequent feedback to each member of the team:  Each supervisor should be responsible for giving regular feedback to members of the team.  This should be a daily task, done with team members on a rotating basis.  Every team member – even those doing excellent work – should get one-on-one time with the supervisor. 
  • Make sure the work environment is comfortable and pleasant:  Things like good lighting, comfortable chairs, good ventilation and a comfortable temperature can have a huge effect on both morale and productivity.

What do you do to keep a contract review staff motivated?  Do you have suggestions you can share with us?  Please share any comments you have and let us know if you’d like to know more about an eDiscovery topic.

eDiscovery Trends: George Socha of Socha Consulting
 

This is the seventh of the LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and asked each of them the same three questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?
  2. Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is George Socha.  A litigator for 16 years, George is President of Socha Consulting LLC, offering services as an electronic discovery expert witness, special master and advisor to corporations, law firms and their clients, and legal vertical market software and service providers in the areas of electronic discovery and automated litigation support. George has also been co-author of the leading survey on the electronic discovery market, The Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey.  In 2005, he and Tom Gelbmann launched the Electronic Discovery Reference Model project to establish standards within the eDiscovery industry – today, the EDRM model has become a standard in the industry for the eDiscovery life cycle and there are eight active projects with over 300 members from 81 participating organizations. George has a J.D. for Cornell Law School and a B.A. from the University of Wisconsin – Madison.

What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?

On the very “flip” side, the number one trend to date in 2011 is predictions about trends in 2011.  They are part of a consistent and long-term pattern, which is that many of these trend predictions are not trend predictions at all – they are marketing material and the prediction is “you will buy my product or service in the coming year”.

That said, there are a couple of things of note.  Since I understand you talked to Tom about Apersee, it’s worth noting that corporations are struggling with working through a list of providers to find out who provides what services.  You would figure that there is somewhere in the range of 500 or so total providers.  But, my ever-growing list, which includes both external and law firm providers, is at more than 1,200.  Of course, some of those are probably not around anymore, but I am confident that there are at least 200-300 that I do not yet have on the list.  My guess when the list shakes out is that there are roughly 1,100 active providers out there today.  If you look at information from the National Center for State Courts and the Federal Judicial Center, you’ll see that there are about 11 million new lawsuits filed every year.  I saw an article in the Cornell Law Forum a week or two ago which indicated that there are roughly 1.1 million lawyers in the country.  So, there are 11 million lawsuits, 1.1 million lawyers and 1,100 providers.  Most of those lawyers have no experience with eDiscovery and most of those lawsuits have no provider involved, which means eDiscovery is still very much an emerging market, not even close to being a mature market.  As fast as providers disappear, through attrition or acquisition, new providers enter the market to take their place.

Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?

{Interviewed on the second afternoon of LTNY}  Maybe this is overly optimistic, but part of what I’m seeing in leading up to the conference, on various web sites and at the conference itself, is that a series of incremental changes taking place over a long period are finally leading to some radical differences.  One of those differences is that we finally are reaching a point where a number of providers can make the claim to being “end-to-end providers” with some legitimacy.  For as long as we’ve had the EDRM model, we’ve had providers that have professed to cover the full EDRM landscape, by which they generally have meant Identification through Production.  A growing number of providers not only cover that portion of the EDRM spectrum but have some ability to address Information Management, Presentation, or both   By and large, those providers are getting there by building their software and services based on experience and learning over the past 8 to 10 to 12 years, introducing new offerings at the show that reflect that learned experience.

A couple of days ago, I only half-jokingly issued “the Dyson challenge” (as in the Dyson vacuum cleaner).  Every year, come January, our living room carpet is strewn with pine tree needles and none of the vacuum cleaners that we have ever had have done a good job of picking up those needles.  The Dyson vacuum cleaner claims it cyclones capture more dirt than anything, but I was convinced that could not include those needles.  Nonetheless I tried, and to my surprise it worked like a charm!  I want to see the providers offering products able to perform at that high level, not just meeting but exceeding expectations.

I also see a feeling of excitement and optimism that wasn’t apparent at last year’s show.

What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

As I mentioned, we have launched the Apersee web site, designed to allow consumers to find providers and products that fit their specific needs.  The site is in beta and the link is live.  It’s in beta because we’re still working on features to make it as useful as possible to customers and providers.  We’re hoping it’s a question of weeks, not months, before those features are implemented.  Once we go fully live, we will go two months with the system “wide open” – where every consumer can see all the provider and product information that any provider has put in the system.  After that, consumers will be able to see full provider and product profiles for providers who have purchased blocks of views.  Even if a provider does not purchase views, all selection criteria it enters are searchable, but search results will display only the provider’s name and website name.  Providers will be able to get stats on queries and how many times their information is viewed, but not detailed information as to which customers are connecting and performing the queries.

As for EDRM, we continue to make progress with an array of projects and a growing number of collaborative efforts, such as the work the Data Set group has down with TREC Legal and the work the Metrics group has done with the LEDES Committee. We not only want to see membership continue to grow, but we also want to continue to push for more active participation to continue to make progress in the various working groups.  We’ve just met at the show here regarding the EDRM Testing pilot project to address testing standards.  There are very few guidelines for testing of electronic discovery software and services, so the Testing project will become a full EDRM project as of the EDRM annual meeting this May to begin to address the need for those guidelines.

Thanks, George, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

Managing an eDiscovery Contract Review Team: Ensuring High-Quality, Consistent Work

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.

  • Continuously sample the documents that are coming through the pipeline:  Regardless of how much time you spent looking at the documents before the project started, there will be surprises in the collection.  And often, similar documents appear together in a collection.  Your project will run much smoother if you know what’s coming before the documents are in the hands of the reviewer.  Have supervisors spend time each day looking at what’s coming next.  When you see documents that will be new to the group, alert the staff.  Have a short meeting with the group.  Show them what they’ll be seeing and tell them how to categorize the documents.
  • Disseminate updated rules and new examples:  As you move through the review, you’ll be continuously seeing new types of documents and refining the criteria to cover what you are seeing.  Make sure this information gets disseminated to the staff.  Update the criteria frequently (in the beginning, this may be daily) and distribute the revised rules and examples to the staff.  Have meetings with the staff to go over new rules.  While meetings will disrupt the work, it will save you time in the long run – time in having to do re-work and fix errors.
  • Quality Control:  As soon as you can, identify members of the review team to do quality control work and make it their job to review the work of the review staff.  At first, they’ll probably need to look at everything.  As the project progresses, they should be able to sample the work.
  • Attorney sampling:  Attorneys should sample work product throughout the life of the project.  They should spot-check the documents in each category (responsive, not responsive, and privileged).

What steps do you take to ensure that a review team is doing high-quality work?  Have you run into glitches?  Please share any comments you have and let us know if you’d like to know more about an eDiscovery topic.

Managing an eDiscovery Contract Review Team: Keeping Decisions in the Hands of the Attorneys
 

The main objective in most document reviews is to categorize each document into one of three categories:

  • Responsive, to be produced
  • Not Responsive
  • Privileged

Attorneys on the litigation team will make the decisions regarding how to categorize the documents, and the contract review staff will implement those decisions.  Before the review even starts, you’ve done a lot of work to ensure that this process will work well:

  • You sampled the collection, looked at a lot of documents, and made decisions regarding how to categorize them
  • You drafted detailed, objective criteria that encapsulates that work product
  • You thoroughly trained the contract staff

And, you’ve staffed the project in a hierarchy that works well for keeping decisions in the hands of the attorneys.  Let’s review how this works in practice.

The base of your project is made up of contract reviewers who have been trained and armed with solid, objective criteria.  They won’t make decisions regarding what constitutes responsiveness or privilege.  They are simply applying rules that have already been developed by attorneys responsible for the case.  When a reviewer comes across a document that isn’t covered by the rules, they bring it to a supervisor.  The supervisor won’t make substantive decisions either, but the supervisor has had more access to the attorneys and broader exposure to the document collection than an individual reviewer, so the supervisor will in many cases know how to categorize a document in question.  When the supervisor can’t do that, it gets kicked up to the next level (most likely the project manager) who has yet broader exposure to the collection.  Some documents will get funneled up to an attorney for a decision.  In fact, that’s likely to happen frequently at the start of the project.  That’s why it’s important that attorney decision-makers are on-site and available full-time in the beginning.  As the project moves forward, you may be able to get by with attorneys being available remotely.

There are other steps you’ll take and mechanisms that you’ll employ to ensure that this model works well.  We’ll cover those in the next post in this series.

How do you structure and manage a document review project?  Please share any comments you have and let us know if you’d like to know more about an eDiscovery topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Christine Musil of Informative Graphics Corporation (IGC)
 

This is the fourth of the LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and asked each of them the same three questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?
  2. Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Christine Musil.  Christine has a diverse career in engineering and marketing spanning 15 years. Christine has been with IGC since March 1996, when she started as a technical writer and a quality assurance engineer. After moving to marketing in 2001, she has applied her in-depth knowledge of IGC's products and benefits to marketing initiatives, including branding, overall messaging, and public relations. She has also been a contributing author to a number of publications on archiving formats, redaction, and viewing technology in the enterprise.

What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?

For us, the biggest trend is elevation of the importance of eDiscovery, from what happens the minute you find out you have a lawsuit until the end of the case.  There’s a lot more discussion about how you can prevent it, how you can be better prepared, and I think that’s where the new buzzword, information governance, comes in.  We partner with OpenText and we partner with EMC on their content management side and we definitely see them pushing into the eDiscovery market to provide an end-to-end solution and stop trying to treat eDiscovery as an isolated issue. I think that the elevation of eDiscovery and inclusion of eDiscovery more into the regular business workflow of an organization is a pretty significant trend to watch.

Another trend that I see is an elevation of the use of search and how people can get more out of their searches to save time and cost.  This may be somewhat skewed based on our perspective in the market, but we’ve had a lot of requests for our redaction software to pick up the search that has already been done. Providers work so hard to come up with amazingly complicated algorithms to find data.  Why reinvent the wheel?  The companies all ask why all the other vendors can’t just take those search results and use it. 

Since you’ve written a white paper about native review and redaction, where do you see that heading?  Well, I hope that people will stop printing things out, scanning it back in to TIFF, then OCRing it and handing everybody back a disk of flat images and a separate disk with OCR text.  I sort of understand why they do it, but I think a less paranoid or adversarial approach through more effective “meet and confer” agreements on how you are going to present things are going to make it so much easier for everybody.  I hope in three to five years people say “I’m not afraid to hand you my native files because I know how to check them and know what metadata they contain and whether there are any tracked changes or other potential issues”.  So, the paranoia and fear that people have about the unknown that they can’t see in their documents and whether there is a smoking gun in there should die down.  I think people are getting smarter – now that they’re not producing paper – as to what  electronic files contain.  Hopefully, they will understand that native format is OK and when they need to redact, it’s OK to use PDF format to do so.  You tell the other side what you’re doing and what they’re going to get and it becomes a more open and well understood process.

I’m also on the EDRM XML committee and hope a standard load file format that transmits data seamlessly from one side to the other and contains all the information about what has been redacted, among other things, will make things easier on everybody, getting information through the process more seamlessly.  We’re writing white papers about the data set to educate the vendors on how to use it and I have high hopes for what we will be able to accomplish there.

Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?

{Interviewed on the first morning of LTNY}  Well, that’s hard since LegalTech just started [smiles].  I can tell you that in discussions with some of our partners, we’re seeing more support for mobile devices, support for the iPad, etc., to help lawyers work wherever they are and be more efficient wherever they are.  And, I think that literally goes all the way to the courtroom.  So, you’re seeing support for more devices and smaller screens, wherever attorneys get information.

What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

I’m moderating a panel discussion {at LegalTech} titled, The Debate on Native Format Production and Redaction, which includes Craig Ball, George Socha, Tom O’Connor and Browning Marean.  I wrote a white paper last year entitled The Reality of Native Format Production and Redaction, which has inspired this panel discussion here at LegalTech.  So, that should be informative and interesting.  We’ve noticed that there’s just an awful lot of confusion in terms of what’s really required and what’s acceptable and the white paper and panel discussion really speaks to that.  We’re trying to educate our customers and help our partners educate their clients.

The other thing we’re announcing here is the release of integration to OpenText eDOCS.  We’ve been partners with OpenText for content management since 2002 and are very excited to extend our partnership to include this new area. eDOCS has a great presence in the legal space and we look forward to working with them.

Thanks, Christine, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

eDiscovery Trends: Alon Israely, Esq., CISSP of BIA
 

This is the second of the LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and asked each of them the same three questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?
  2. Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Alon Israely.  Alon is a Senior Advisor in BIA’s Advisory Services group and when he’s not advising clients on e-discovery issues he works closely with BIA’s product development group for its core technology products.  Alon has over fifteen years of experience in a variety of advanced computing-related technologies and has consulted with law firms and their clients on a variety of technology issues, including expert witness services related to computer forensics, digital evidence management and data security.

What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?

I think one of the important trends for corporate clients and law firms is cost control, whether it’s trying to minimize the amount of project management hours that are being billed or the manner in which the engagement is facilitated.  I’m not suggesting going full-bore necessarily, but taking baby steps to help control costs is a good approach.  I don’t think it’s only about bringing prices down, because I think that the industry in general has been able to do that naturally well.  But, I definitely see a new focus on the manner in which costs are managed and outsourced.  So, very specifically, scoping correctly is key, making sure you’re using the right tool for the right job, keeping efficiencies (whether that’s on the vendor side or the client side) by doing things such as not having five phone calls for a meeting to figure out what the key words are for field searching or just going out and imaging every drive before deciding what’s really needed. Bringing simple efficiencies to the mechanics of doing e-discovery saves tons of money in unnecessary legal, vendor and project management fees.  You can do things that are about creating efficiencies, but are not necessarily changing the process or changing the pricing.

I also see trends in technology, using more focused tools and different tools to facilitate a single project.  Historically, parties would hire three or four different vendors for a single project, but today it may be just one or two vendors or maybe even no vendors, (just the law firm) but, it’s the use of the right technologies for the right situations – maybe not just one piece of software, but leveraging several for different parts of the process.  Overall, I foresee fewer vendors per project, but more vendors increasing their stable of tools.  So, whereas a vendor may have had a review tool and one way of doing collection, now they may have two or three review tools, including an ECA tool, and one or two ways of doing collections. They have a toolkit from which they can choose the best set of tools to bring to the engagement.  Because they have more tools to market, vendors can have the right tool in-their-back-pocket whereas before the tool belonged to just one service provider so you bought from them, or you just didn’t have it.

Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?

{Interviewed on the first morning of LTNY} I think you have either a little or a lot of – depending on how aggressive I want to be with my opinion – that there seems to be a disconnect between what they’re speaking about in the panels and what we’re seeing on the floor.  But, I think that’s OK in that the conference itself, is usually a little bit ahead of the curve with respect to topics, and the technology will catch up.  You have topics such as predictive coding and social networking related issues – those are two big ones that you’ll see.  I think, for example, there are very few companies that have a solution for social networking, though we happen to have one.  And, predictive coding is the same scenario.  You have a lot of providers that talk about it, but you have a handful that actually do it, and you have probably even fewer than that who do it right.  I think that next year you’ll see many predictive coding solutions and technologies and many more tools that have that capability built into them.  So, on the conference side, there is one level of information and on the floor side, a different level.

What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

BIA has a new product called TotalDiscovery.com, the industry’s first SaaS (software-as-a-service), on-demand collection technology that provides defensible collections.  We just rolled it out, we’re introducing it here at LegalTech and we’re starting a technology preview and signing up people who want to use the application or try it.  It’s specifically for attorneys, corporations, service providers – anyone who’s in the business and needs a tool for defensible data collection performed with agility (always hard to balance) – so without having to buy software or have expert training, users simply login or register and can start immediately.  You don’t have to worry about the traditional business processes to get things set up and started.  Which, if you think about it on the collections side of e-discovery it means that  the client’s CEO or VP of Marketing can call you up and say “I’m leaving, I have my PST here, can you just come get it?” and you can facilitate that process through the web, download an application, walk through a wizard, collect it defensibly, encrypt it and then deliver a filtered set, as needed, for review..

The tool is designed to collect defensibly and to move the collected data – or some subset of that data –to delivery, from there you would select your review tool of choice and we hand it off to the selected review tool.  So, we’re not trying to be everything, we’re focused on automating the left side of the EDRM.  We have loads to certain tools, having been a service provider for ten years, and we’re connecting with partners so that we can do the handoff, so when the client says “I’m ready to deliver my data”, they can choose OnDemand or Concordance or another review tool, and then either directly send it or the client can download and ship it.  We’re not trying to be a review tool and not trying to be an ECA tool that helps you find the needle in the haystack; instead, we’re focused on collecting the data, normalizing it, cataloguing it and handing if off for the attorneys to do their work.

Thanks, Alon, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

Managing an eDiscovery Contract Review Team: Starting the Project
 

Throughout the life of the project, you will implement some standard project management techniques for monitoring quality and ensuring that questions are resolved efficiently.  We’re going to cover those techniques in the next blog posts in this series.  There are, however, a couple of special steps you should take at the beginning of a project to ensure that it gets off to a smooth start.

First, you want to make sure very quickly that everyone on the team understands the criteria and is applying it correctly to the documents.  The best way to do this is to check everybody’s initial work right away and to provide feedback as quickly as you can.   Make arrangements with the supervisory staff to work extra hours the first few days of the project.  During the first couple of days of the project, have supervisors check the work after the review staff leaves.   Have the supervisors give feedback – one-on-one – to each team member within the first couple of days of the project.  In addition, make sure that the supervisors are communicating with one another and with the project manager about what they are finding.  Wide-spread misunderstandings will uncover holes in the training and can easily be cleared up with the group in short re-training sessions. 

When we talked about who should be on the review team, we talked about “decision makers” and subject matter experts.  Make sure these team members are onsite full-time the first few days of the project.  There will be a lot of questions the first few days, and you’ll want to resolve those questions quickly.  Once the project gets underway, the level of questions will subside, and the supervisors and project manager will be better equipped to answer the questions that do arise.  At that point, you probably don’t need the decision makers and subject matter experts on hand full time.  But make sure they are present at the start of the project. 

How do you approach starting a document review project?  Please share any comments you have and let us know if you’d like to know more about an eDiscovery topic.