Document Review

In my experience as an e-discovery project manager, I’ve found that one of the primary reasons for lengthy document reviews is the need to redact documents. While the extent to which redactions will be needed may not be known at the outset of a review, good project management should include recognizing when and what type of redactions may be needed. Factors to consider include the type of case, the extensive nature of the collection process, the type of files processed for review, the stipulations agreed to in the ESI protocol and protective order, the sophistication of the legal teams involved, the contentious nature of the dispute and, perhaps of equal importance, the technology available to apply those redactions.

Life around the world has significantly changed in the last three months. From job losses, homeschooling, and working from home, daily life is not the same as it was in February. The world of E-Discovery has not been immune. Law firms and service providers have been forced to adapt to a quickly changing environment. From an E-Discovery perspective, the use of these remote working tools creates new data sources for preservation and collection. Diligent attorneys and clients would be wise to consider and discuss how these tools might impact the phases of E-Discovery moving forward.

Searching is a core e-discovery skill that has been a part of the legal case landscape for about two decades now. Throughout that time, the fundamental capabilities for keyword searching have not changed much. However, my experience has shown that crafting a good, effective search a core e-discovery technical (and artistic!) skill. This blog offers insight into how to do just that.

It takes a minute to come to terms with the definitions of "structured" and "unstructured" data. It seems logical to associate “formatting,” such as the formatting that comes with word documents (indentation, headers and footers, paragraphs, etc.) with “structure,” but the terms are used very differently when it comes to describing data. This blog will explore structured data, particularly as it pertains to the preservation, collection, processing, review and production of such data, using the Slack instant communication tool as an example.

One of the greatest fears in any litigation matter is that you will somehow accidentally produce work product or attorney-client privileged documents to the opposing side and waive the privilege. As a result, it has become standard protocol for parties to enter into clawback agreements that protect sensitive electronically stored information (ESI). Clawback agreements allow parties to agree that the inadvertent production of privileged information will not automatically waive the privilege and provide a process for the return or destruction of that privileged material.

Picture this: Your team has completed the first level and quality control reviews. Your documents have been produced, your privilege log is out the door and you have just received the incoming document production from the opposing party. Now you have a universe of documents with the potential to be used as deposition exhibits, in expert reports, and as trial exhibits. It would be nice if there was a way to take advantage of your previous work identifying hot documents during first level and quality control reviews by using them to identify documents with similar issues or themes in the opposing parties production. You and your team spent days, weeks, or even months reviewing documents for production. Leveraging this time (and costs) would be greatly appreciated by your client. But is that even possible? Yes it is!