It’s impossible for counsel to look at every single document that’s part of a large-scale e-data review—doing so would be prohibitively costly and time-consuming. But it’s also unacceptable to blindly produce documents to the opposing party. You can safeguard clients without excessive expense by taking time at the beginning of the case to make some determinations about how to conduct the review. Try one of these four ways to speed up e-data review.
The following is a guest blog post by Perry L. Segal, an eDiscovery attorney with more than 25 years of combined experience in law and technology. He regularly writes on the subject at eDiscovery Insights.
In a side-by-side comparison between the benefits and detriments of BYOD (Bring Your Own Device), there’s no doubt that allowing BYOD might seem likely to yield productivity gains and other benefits for the company. But from a technology-management standpoint, BYOD causes great difficulty. If I were consulted, here’s why I’d likely fall into the “against” group.
Most discovery requests will require production of electronic data. Even if you’re tech savvy, it’s better not to go it alone because the sanctions for missing something can be huge, as Delta Airlines and defense counsel in a trademark case have found out the hard way. Plus you have an ethical duty to competently handle e-discovery—including bringing technical consultants on board when needed.
During discovery, parties often use search terms to separate the wheat from the chaff, i.e., the irrelevant or unresponsive data from the relevant or responsive information. The sheer volume of electronic material makes the use of search terms a necessity, but, as with many conveniences, there is some risk involved. The key may be in agreeing to share search terms that will improve the process without showing your hand.
Updated 8/17/15: Companies are increasingly turning to automated hold processes to make a legal hold smoother and more legally defensible.
When the duty to preserve electronic evidence arises and how far it extends can be the subject of heated dispute. One thing is clear, however: When the duty to preserve evidence is triggered by pending litigation or the possibility of future litigation, don’t hit that delete button!