Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Laying a Foundation for Integrated e-Discovery Systems
Typically, the production of data in litigation involves a series of disconnected actions involving several corporate or cloud-based systems. These disassociated e-discovery activities ' identify, preserve, collect, and track (IPCT), and then feed into a downstream set of processing, review, and production (PRP) steps often hosted outside the corporate firewall. Fortunately, technology advances are helping counsel and client alike to integrate systems and streamline processes both inside and across the firewall. These improvements generate real advantages in risk reduction, time and cost efficiencies, and case strategy.
While the electronic discovery reference model (EDRM, as shown in Figure 1, below) defines the different steps in the e-discovery process, e-discovery in itself is not a linear process. For example, when interviewing custodians as part of the legal hold process, it is common to find other custodians or related data that may be relevant to the matter. An integrated e-discovery process allows legal teams to go back, preserve, analyze and collect data as information is uncovered through the interview process without having to rework steps already taken.
[IMGCAP(1)]
The following eight points detail the needs and benefits of an integrated, enterprise e-discovery ecosystem.
1. Build the Plan
An integrated system is not built in a day. For organizations with a large amount of unmanaged data, such as data living on laptops or sprinkled throughout numerous geographical locations, the analysis process helps fold in this content at an early stage. For example, the e-discovery team can be alerted to spots where EU data privacy provisions might apply and add time to the collection and review schedule. The enterprise e-discovery plan also lays out responsibilities, timelines, resource requirements and milestones to help define success in an environment where the absence of something happening is the desired result ' the absence of risk and the absence of uncertainty.
2. Map the Data
Across data sources susceptible to discovery, legal and IT teams should both have a clear picture of the systems, their owners and users, governing retention policies, and the type and age of data stored in each. Proactively creating a data map that tracks this information, along with instructions for how to preserve, identify and collect such information when required, is critical. Historically, keeping a data map current and up-to-date has been problematic. Newer e-discovery technology addresses this issue through automatically deployed workflows, assignments, change notifications and periodic scans of repositories.
3. Define Workflows and Status Updates
Effective e-discovery management depends on consistent, repeatable processes and workflows. Workflows specifically define the interplay among people, processes and technology as e-discovery projects move from start to finish. This connectivity is extremely important in a process that involves a variety of stakeholders (e.g., legal, IT, records management), a multitude of detailed tasks, and multiple departments. Automating workflows and the collection of status information from disparate tools enables legal teams to deploy a clear and proactive process with well-defined objectives, timelines, and assignments. Workflows can serve as a framework for setting goals and measuring performance to plans.
4. Find and Manage the Elusive Custodian
Any individual who holds information potentially relevant to a legal matter (a “custodian”) is one of the biggest management challenges in e-discovery. When did that custodian join the organization? Where is that custodian now? What happened to the custodian's data if such custodian no longer works for the organization? How did the custodian address a document hold request when the custodian was with the organization? These problems are paramount for international organizations with numerous moves and changes. Disconnects between HR, the business, and IT can result in overlooked or destroyed key data. A fully integrated e-discovery system directly communicates with key enterprise systems, like Active Directory or human resources, matter management, archiving, and e-mail systems. It can also alert the legal team to important changes in employee status that affect current and future cases, alleviating many of these custodian-specific issues.
5. Preserve and Collect Intelligently
A defensible legal hold and preservation process has the potential to make the job of identifying and preserving relevant data easier. Preserving broadly but limiting data movement and collection to the most relevant evidence is paramount to this process. Newer legal hold systems directly integrate with enterprise systems, such as e-mail in Office 365 and Exchange 2013 or data stored in archiving systems, like Informatica ILM, allowing data to be preserved in place. This advancement enables key data to be scoped and locked down without disrupting organizational productivity. It also limits the amount of data that must be collected and reviewed at the outset of a matter. Targeted, incremental collections can be performed once more information emerges about the case or as a result of technology-assisted review (TAR).
6. Analyze the Evidence Early
Accurately weighing the merits of a case requires “lifting the iceberg” out of the water to assess data volumes, stakeholders involved, and what the initial evidence indicates. Many advanced search and filtering tools narrow the electronically stored information (ESI) funnel much earlier in the process. With a fully integrated system, legal teams gain the ability to index, search, and analyze information “in-place” as it exists in its native store, analyze key custodian data, and perform informed cost-benefit analysis before proceeding with full-bore collection and review activities.
7. Integrate with Document Review
The need to integrate early IPCT with downstream review is an essential component of a non-linear e-discovery project. For example, as hot issues are identified, new data must be collected and added to the review set, which can affect budget and project timelines. An integrated system minimizes re-work and leverages prior efforts.
8. Drive Visibility with Centralized Dashboards
It takes a village to preserve and process discovery data. By integrating upstream IPCT and downstream PRP processes with enterprise systems, legal and IT teams gain the visibility required to drive compliance and cooperation across all stakeholders and custodians. By gaining visibility into the inputs, the outputs, and the activities at each stage of discovery, legal teams can ensure processes are performed consistently, reduce missteps, and leverage economies of scale. Most importantly, the ability to eliminate surprises, spoliation, or other malfeasance moves the effort from defensive and reactive to strategic and proactive.
Conclusion
The vast majority of e-discovery-related mistakes occur as a result of poor coordination among e-discovery team members and incomplete hand-offs from one application program to another. Integrating systems for e-discovery leads to consistency, which naturally improves defensibility. Integration is a critical tool in achieving repeatable processes, reducing the variation that naturally results from working with disparate groups and technologies. Taking a proactive approach through planning, automation, workflows, and integrations helps address growing e-discovery requirements for in-house legal departments.
'
SPECIAL OFFER: Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and Google+ followers can get an online subscription to LJN's Legal Tech Newsletter for only $299. Click here, select Digital Only and use promo code LTNOL299 at checkout. This offer is valid for new subscribers only.
'
Typically, the production of data in litigation involves a series of disconnected actions involving several corporate or cloud-based systems. These disassociated e-discovery activities ' identify, preserve, collect, and track (IPCT), and then feed into a downstream set of processing, review, and production (PRP) steps often hosted outside the corporate firewall. Fortunately, technology advances are helping counsel and client alike to integrate systems and streamline processes both inside and across the firewall. These improvements generate real advantages in risk reduction, time and cost efficiencies, and case strategy.
While the electronic discovery reference model (EDRM, as shown in Figure 1, below) defines the different steps in the e-discovery process, e-discovery in itself is not a linear process. For example, when interviewing custodians as part of the legal hold process, it is common to find other custodians or related data that may be relevant to the matter. An integrated e-discovery process allows legal teams to go back, preserve, analyze and collect data as information is uncovered through the interview process without having to rework steps already taken.
[IMGCAP(1)]
The following eight points detail the needs and benefits of an integrated, enterprise e-discovery ecosystem.
1. Build the Plan
An integrated system is not built in a day. For organizations with a large amount of unmanaged data, such as data living on laptops or sprinkled throughout numerous geographical locations, the analysis process helps fold in this content at an early stage. For example, the e-discovery team can be alerted to spots where EU data privacy provisions might apply and add time to the collection and review schedule. The enterprise e-discovery plan also lays out responsibilities, timelines, resource requirements and milestones to help define success in an environment where the absence of something happening is the desired result ' the absence of risk and the absence of uncertainty.
2. Map the Data
Across data sources susceptible to discovery, legal and IT teams should both have a clear picture of the systems, their owners and users, governing retention policies, and the type and age of data stored in each. Proactively creating a data map that tracks this information, along with instructions for how to preserve, identify and collect such information when required, is critical. Historically, keeping a data map current and up-to-date has been problematic. Newer e-discovery technology addresses this issue through automatically deployed workflows, assignments, change notifications and periodic scans of repositories.
3. Define Workflows and Status Updates
Effective e-discovery management depends on consistent, repeatable processes and workflows. Workflows specifically define the interplay among people, processes and technology as e-discovery projects move from start to finish. This connectivity is extremely important in a process that involves a variety of stakeholders (e.g., legal, IT, records management), a multitude of detailed tasks, and multiple departments. Automating workflows and the collection of status information from disparate tools enables legal teams to deploy a clear and proactive process with well-defined objectives, timelines, and assignments. Workflows can serve as a framework for setting goals and measuring performance to plans.
4. Find and Manage the Elusive Custodian
Any individual who holds information potentially relevant to a legal matter (a “custodian”) is one of the biggest management challenges in e-discovery. When did that custodian join the organization? Where is that custodian now? What happened to the custodian's data if such custodian no longer works for the organization? How did the custodian address a document hold request when the custodian was with the organization? These problems are paramount for international organizations with numerous moves and changes. Disconnects between HR, the business, and IT can result in overlooked or destroyed key data. A fully integrated e-discovery system directly communicates with key enterprise systems, like Active Directory or human resources, matter management, archiving, and e-mail systems. It can also alert the legal team to important changes in employee status that affect current and future cases, alleviating many of these custodian-specific issues.
5. Preserve and Collect Intelligently
A defensible legal hold and preservation process has the potential to make the job of identifying and preserving relevant data easier. Preserving broadly but limiting data movement and collection to the most relevant evidence is paramount to this process. Newer legal hold systems directly integrate with enterprise systems, such as e-mail in Office 365 and Exchange 2013 or data stored in archiving systems, like Informatica ILM, allowing data to be preserved in place. This advancement enables key data to be scoped and locked down without disrupting organizational productivity. It also limits the amount of data that must be collected and reviewed at the outset of a matter. Targeted, incremental collections can be performed once more information emerges about the case or as a result of technology-assisted review (TAR).
6. Analyze the Evidence Early
Accurately weighing the merits of a case requires “lifting the iceberg” out of the water to assess data volumes, stakeholders involved, and what the initial evidence indicates. Many advanced search and filtering tools narrow the electronically stored information (ESI) funnel much earlier in the process. With a fully integrated system, legal teams gain the ability to index, search, and analyze information “in-place” as it exists in its native store, analyze key custodian data, and perform informed cost-benefit analysis before proceeding with full-bore collection and review activities.
7. Integrate with Document Review
The need to integrate early IPCT with downstream review is an essential component of a non-linear e-discovery project. For example, as hot issues are identified, new data must be collected and added to the review set, which can affect budget and project timelines. An integrated system minimizes re-work and leverages prior efforts.
8. Drive Visibility with Centralized Dashboards
It takes a village to preserve and process discovery data. By integrating upstream IPCT and downstream PRP processes with enterprise systems, legal and IT teams gain the visibility required to drive compliance and cooperation across all stakeholders and custodians. By gaining visibility into the inputs, the outputs, and the activities at each stage of discovery, legal teams can ensure processes are performed consistently, reduce missteps, and leverage economies of scale. Most importantly, the ability to eliminate surprises, spoliation, or other malfeasance moves the effort from defensive and reactive to strategic and proactive.
Conclusion
The vast majority of e-discovery-related mistakes occur as a result of poor coordination among e-discovery team members and incomplete hand-offs from one application program to another. Integrating systems for e-discovery leads to consistency, which naturally improves defensibility. Integration is a critical tool in achieving repeatable processes, reducing the variation that naturally results from working with disparate groups and technologies. Taking a proactive approach through planning, automation, workflows, and integrations helps address growing e-discovery requirements for in-house legal departments.
'
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.