Lawyers who are new to electronic discovery may assume things are “impossible.” Moreover, some attorneys argue “undue burden” without consulting with a third-party expert based on the assumption e-Discovery is inherently cost prohibitive.
Consulting with a third-party expert, or even performing a Google search, may prove the “impossible” is actually a common practice in many situations.
This case likely would have saved time and money if the parties could have agreed on the key custodians, had a third-party preserve the data and then had an index which could be searched based on agreed upon keywords within the same sentence. This could likely would have cost less than the protracted litigation, meet and confer conferences and a motion to compel battle.
via A Search Term Turkey « Bow Tie Law’s Blog.
e-discovery 2.0 » Blog Archive » Electronic Discovery, EDiscovery, E-Discovery, Legal Discovery.
Clearwell Systems has been keeping up with the latest discussion and trends in searching thanks to its participation in the TREC Legal Track. Here they discuss and link to the latest white paper which analyzes “the task of producing specific records in response to a `discovery request'”
This is a very high-level discussion on searching technology that will aid you in discussing application vendor claims about how their search & retrieval technology is better than the next guy.
In an e-discovery world where simple keyword searching is no longer considered a reasonable effort, it is recommended that you learn all you can about how to turn your mountain of data into a mole hill in the most efficient and cost effective way possible.
- Tagged automated review, cost containment, defensibility, ECA, EDD Project Management, privilege, Production, quality control, reasonable efforts, Review, review technology, Searching, Software, TREC, vendor sponsored, whitepapers
Podcasts – Law Technology News.
Law Technology Now with Monica Bay & Craig Ball discussing the 2008 Victor Stanley Inc. v Creative Pipe Inc. case which had a huge impact on ESI searching trends. This case is often referred to in the ongoing discussion on searching.
Update: This morning (July 28, 2010), I attended a CLE program in Atlanta where the panel discussed (among other things) how simply performing a keyword search is no longer considered “reasonable effort” when demonstrating to the court that you did everything you possibly could to avoid producing privilege information or mismanaging your case in general.
What is “reasonable effort” as it applies to e-discovery? Ralph Losey covered this on his blog here and here.