Technology Advantage

Winning the E-Discovery Groundhog Day with Data Repositories

September 14th, 2017
Winning the E-Discovery Groundhog Day with Data Repositories

Corporate clients are becoming increasingly sophisticated in e-discovery and, as a result, they are looking for creative ways to proactively avoid duplicative costs and efforts down the road. They are beginning to treat e-discovery as an integrated business process that provides opportunities to increase efficiencies rather than a reactive and redundant Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM). As clients become more engaged as stakeholders in the EDRM, they hope to avoid a “groundhog day” loop of collect, process, review and produce in one case, then rinse and repeat for ensuing matters which  cover a similar data universe. An e-discovery data repository containing previously processed, and often previously reviewed, data can short circuit this loop.

When used properly, data repositories reduce operational costs by creating efficiencies across multiple litigations by allowing the re-use of “already-paid-for” processed data in related litigations and by taking advantage of coding from a common pool. At Kilpatrick Townsend, our clients have realized tangible benefits and measurable cost savings in leveraging data using respositories.

A Few Benefits of Utilizing Data Repositories

#1: Collect and Process Only Once

The main operational cost benefit of data repositories is obvious. Processing is expensive, time consuming and distracts custodians from their jobs. Nothing is more frustrating to budgets, time constraints, and custodians than collecting and processing the same data over and over again. If you have related litigations like a class action product liability case or multi-district litigation that reference similar groups of custodians, it is most efficient to collect and process your data in one place at one time. Once you have consolidated your data in one place, you are able to export the relevant material on a case by case basis to each individual litigation workspace, having only been required to collect and process the data once.   

#2: Leverage Review

The second driver of operational e-discovery costs and time is review. An e-discovery data repository can reduce this impact by providing a central location for review that can then be leveraged against all related cases. Reviewing documents in a central repository promotes consistency across cases by aligning decision-making across an entire portfolio. Such uniformity is especially valuable for corporations facing significant regulatory investigations or compliance requirements that require predictability and consistency in  data analysis. Aside from savings in costs and time, and preservation of consistency, a repository can improve litigation strategy by serving as a library of lessons learned. For example, if your review team missed the significance of a document in the first litigation, you can mark it as key, create notes about how it hurt or helped you, and be ready to address the document in the next round.

Here at Kilpatrick Townsend, we represent many sophisticated clients in trademark matters.  This type of representation is ongoing and regularly utilizes the same historical prosecution and enforcement documents, specimens of use, advertising and sales records, and point of sale materials over and over again in multiple matters. Having an easily-accessible, fully-indexed location for central corporate documents is extraordinarily efficient and strategically advantageous. Leveraging data repositories, we may well be able to meet initial discovery requirements for a preliminary injunction or infringement defense with a virtual press of a button. As an added bonus (and initially an after-thought), several of these clients have also used the repository as a technical research or business development library.   

#3: Minimize Breach Concerns 

Data security is another reason to have a centralized repository. When the company jewels are literally being passed from law firm to vendor to opposing counsel to their vendor and various other third parties, the mind dizzies at the data breach concerns. A repository can address this by keeping the data behind the client or law firm firewall. The client is able to grant granular security to ensure that only identified individuals or groups may access needed documents, while maintaining all of the required documents in a single, central location behind a secure firewall.

Successful Data Repositories

  • A U.S. based technology company with global reach was up against three ongoing and up to a dozen future litigations involving claims of patent infringement for a series of related products. When we realized we would be working with a similar pool of custodian data for all of the matters spread across the country, we decided it was best to create a repository for all cases. Using search terms and various analytics tools, our review teams coded the documents for privilege, several types of confidentiality and a comprehensive list of issues. The coding has proven helpful in guiding litigation strategy by providing the client with critical information concerning the relationship and distribution of various products. In all likelihood, these same documents will be produced or privilege logged in multiple litigations, so we continue to reap benefits. 
  • For a large player in the financial sector, we created a repository of over 12 million records that were potentially relevant to a number of internal investigations, administrative actions and possible future litigations. We ran searches within the repository and coded the search results for responsiveness, confidentiality, privilege and issues. As new related matters arise, we export responsive documents from the repository to individual litigation matter databases which are then accessed by a variety of different outside counsel. The result has been improved communication between the various outside counsel, consistency in litigation strategy and lower discovery costs across the board.

  • In a large scale antitrust matter for a multi-national consumer electronics manufacturer,  we anticipated many follow on litigations from individual plaintiffs and other government entities. In an effort to be proactive for the current and future litigations, we identified a set of documents using predictive coding that were responsive in general to the subject matter of the antitrust, but not particularly sensitive, to these related matters. When those follow on litigations ensued, we were able to use this material as a centralized repository to meet aggressive and overlapping discovery deadlines.  This was a tremendous time saver and freed us up to find and focus on the more sensitive or issue specific documents.

 

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this blog is not intended as legal advice or as an opinion on specific facts. For more information about these issues, please contact the author(s) of this blog or your existing LitSmart contact. The invitation to contact the author is not to be construed as a solicitation for legal work. Any new attorney/client relationship will be confirmed in writing.

Topics: Data Storage Repository Streamline Processes E-Discovery

Subscribe to the E-Discovery Newsletter

Related Posts

  • Data Mapping - Why is it Important for Successful E-Discovery?

    A data map is usually something that is generated along with a data retention plan and is a great starting point if and when an organization becomes involved in litigation and discovery. Long before litigation and discovery, however, it is important to understand the relevant data sources that may be in play and where those can be found within the organization’s various data systems. This blog explains what a data map is, what it contains and how it is helpful.

  • Pitfalls of Complex Search Protocols in ESI Agreements

    ESI Agreements cover the full gambit of e-discovery issues, from preservation expectations to production specifications. Sometimes, these agreements include an overview of the process by which the parties will identify the universe of potentially responsive documents by using specific date ranges, identifying priority custodians and developing proposed search terms. Adding another layer of complexity, this discussion is often had in a vacuum before the parties even know how much data their clients have. Coming up with criteria that identifies the relevant documents, but is not overly broad, in this vacuum can be difficult. However, the process is important because the date range, custodians and terms will inevitably dictate how much data is collected, processed and reviewed, which can significantly affect any litigation budget.

Newest Posts

  • You’re Gonna Need A Bigger Boat: Data Management and E Discovery Strategy

    “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.” 

    This iconic line was uttered by Chief Brody in the 1975 blockbuster film Jaws when he first saw the massive size of the shark they were trying to catch. At that moment, Brody realized they were in completely over their heads, and the boat they had was not big enough to accomplish their task. While Quint’s Orca fishing boat and his traditional methods were capable of handling previous assignments, they were not going to be enough to take on the enormous shark they were chasing. 

    For better or worse, the digital environment we live in has resulted in an explosion in the number of documents and amount of information created and used by companies in their daily operations. A mid-sized company’s internal emails alone can run into the tens of thousands a day, and that is before factoring in reports, meeting minutes, studies, presentations, and other business documents. Adding in external emails and related attachments, you are looking at millions of documents a year. Because of this increased volume of data, companies dealing with potential litigation must adjust accordingly. 

    Like Brody, they need a bigger boat. An effective e-discovery strategy can provide companies with a bigger boat capable of handling even the most massive litigation matters.

  • Now You See Me, Now You Don’t: Ephemeral Messaging Challenges

    The emergence of ephemeral messaging applications to communicate with friends, family, and coworkers quickly, securely, and effortlessly has boomed over the past decade. In that time, users of ephemeral messaging apps have risen significantly, from millions to billions of active users! Ephemeral messaging is an integral and evolving part of both individual and company communications with advantages and challenges impacting companies and the legal industry. Companies must consider the ramifications of their employees' use of ephemeral messaging and adopt policies and procedures to best protect themselves and comply with requirements relating to litigation and regulation. Courts have already begun addressing the failure to preserve relevant ephemeral messages and have been issuing sanctions in a myriad of legal challenges. Ephemeral messaging is here to stay, and companies, courts, and attorneys must understand and adapt to evolve with this emerging technology.

  • Generative AI E-Discovery Tools and the Importance of Prompt Engineering

    The explosion of LLMs (large language models) and other Generative AI tools designed to increase workplace efficiency and productivity has created a new lexicon of jargon and definitions. The term “Prompt Engineering” may be the most widely used new term to describe the method of using LLMs and Generative AI tools. Prompt engineering is the creation of text-based instructions or cues that a person uses to direct LLMs or other generative AI tools. These instructions are then interpreted by the AI tool. Learning to harness the power of e-discovery AI Tools like Relativity’s aiR for Review through prompts specifically constructed to produce the output you desire in your case can increase your efficiency. Implementing these prompt creation and iteration tips and tricks will help you use Relativity’s aiR for Review tool to more effectively to assist with litigation, document review, and deposition or trial preparation.