Document Review

This is Part Three of a continuing series on ESI basics. In this series, we cover some of the terms used most often on the tech-side of e-discovery. In Part One, we provided an overview of PSTs. You can find that article here. In Part Two, we provided a primer on data processing. You can find that article here.  Whether this is an introduction to you or a refresher, and whether you are an attorney, member of an in-house team or data analyst, this information may come in handy in your practice.

Managing a document review that contains foreign language documents and utilizes foreign language reviewers comes with its own set of unique challenges. In this article I provide insight into my experience managing a foreign language review (while not speaking the foreign language) and lessons I learned along the way.

In an era of massive spreadsheets, expansive power points, and wide ranging email discussions, there are innumerable documents that may contain tremendous amounts of non-relevant and sensitive information which the opposing side would not be entitled to at all, except for that information’s proximity to minimal amounts of relevant information. Not all courts have come out in the same place on redacting non-responsive information, however, and there appears to be a dearth of controlling law or general consensus. In this article we will survey a cross section of relevant cases on both sides of the issue.

With the opening of the LitSmart® E-Discovery Review Center in Winston-Salem, the award-winning LitSmart E-Discovery Team is able to centrally manage document reviews on litigation taking place across the country while providing e-discovery services at highly-competitive rates in the national market. Here we detail a sample of the team's 100+ successful document reviews.