If you’ve used any review tool, you’re familiar with the “tag” field to classify documents. Whether classifying documents as responsive, non-responsive, privileged, or applicable to any of a number of issues, you’ve probably used a tag field to simply check a document to indicate that the associated characteristic of the document is “true”. But, if you fall in love with the tag field too much, your database can become unmanageable and you may find yourself playing “hide and seek” to try to find the desired tag.
Understanding the internal and external challenges that your organization faces allows it to approach ongoing and future discovery more strategically. A “SWOT” analysis is a tool that can be used to develop that understanding.
In the latest post of the Advanced Discovery blog, Tom O’Connor (who is an industry thought leader and has been a thought leader interviewee on this blog several times) posed an interesting question: Is Keyword Searching Dead?
Last week, we covered the Burd v. Ford Motor Co. case where the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a deposition of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on the defendant’s search and collection methodology involving self-collection of responsive documents by custodians based on search instructions provided by counsel. In light of that case and a recent client experience of mine, I thought it would be appropriate to revisit this topic that we addressed a couple of years ago.
Friday, we wrote about tracking file counts from collection to production, the concept of expanded file counts, and the categorization of files during processing. Today, let’s walk through a scenario to show how the files collected are accounted for during the discovery process.
A while back, we wrote about Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) in the eDiscovery process. Both are important in improving the quality of work product and making the eDiscovery process more defensible overall. With regard to QC, an overall QC mechanism is tracking of document counts through the discovery process, especially from collection to production, to identify how every collected file was handled and why each non-produced document was not produced.
As we approach our country’s independence day on Saturday, we thought we would take a look at how that relates to electronic discovery and ask this question: Do you feel like you’re frequently dependent on others to accomplish the tasks you need to complete within your discovery process? If so, here’s some ways you can declare your eDiscovery independence!
When beginning a new eDiscovery project, a good place so start is to estimate the various tasks that will need to be performed and identify the type of personnel that will be needed. It is also important as the project progresses to revisit the project tasks and assignments to determine whether additional personnel are needed or if you can cut back. Yesterday, we began discussing the types of roles that could be associated with a typical eDiscovery project, here are some other roles,
When beginning a new eDiscovery project, a good place so start is to estimate the various tasks that will need to be performed and identify the type of personnel that will be needed. It is also important as the project progresses to revisit the project tasks and assignments to determine whether additional personnel are needed or if you can cut back. Here are the types of roles that could be associated with a typical eDiscovery project.
If you’re a fan of a pro football team, you’ve been waiting months to see what players your favorite team will be drafting. That wait ends tonight as the annual NFL draft kicks off. When it comes to selecting football players, the most important player is the quarterback. Like a football team, every litigation team navigating the discovery process needs a good “quarterback”. What skills does your eDiscovery “quarterback” need? Let’s take a look.
By far, the most important (and, therefore, the most asked) question asked of eDiscovery providers is “How much will it cost?”. Actually, you should be asking a few questions to get that answer – if they are the right questions, you can actually get the answer you seek.
When a case is filed, several activities must be completed within a short period of time (often as soon as the first seven to ten days after filing) to enable you to assess the scope of the case, where the key electronically stored information (ESI) is located and whether to proceed with the case or attempt to settle with opposing counsel. Here are several of the key early activities that can assist in deciding whether to litigate or settle the case.
In April, we covered a benchmarking study of eDiscovery Practices for Government Agencies conducted by Deloitte – their seventh annual such study. You don’t have to wait a whole year for an update – their Eighth Annual Benchmarking Study of Electronic Discovery Practices for Government Agencies is available now.
When you’ve worked in litigation support and eDiscovery as long as some of us have, you just think a little bit differently – even when it comes to naming files and folders on your computer. In her excellent Litigation Support Guru blog, Amy Bowser-Rollins provides some best practices to think more like a litigation support person.
Yesterday, we discussed a new self-assessment test that enables organizations to measure their eDiscovery “maturity”. Today, we look at a new survey of corporate counsel from BDO Consulting that shows that they feel there is substantial room for improvement when evaluating their organizations' effectiveness in managing eDiscovery.
A new self-assessment resource from EDRM helps you answer that question. A few days ago, EDRM announced the release of the EDRM eDiscovery Maturity Self-Assessment Test (eMSAT-1), the “first self-assessment resource to help organizations measure their eDiscovery maturity”. Find out more about it here.
If you have worked in litigation support for a number of years like I have, you start to assemble a toolkit of applications that help you get your job done more quickly and efficiently. In her excellent Litigation Support Guru blog, Amy Bowser-Rollins has recently published a series of posts that describe tools of the trade that she recommends to litigation support “newbies”. Let’s take a look.
When we launched nearly four years ago on September 20, 2010, our goal was to be a daily resource for eDiscovery news and analysis. Now, after doing so each business day, I’m happy to announce that today is our 1,000th post on eDiscovery Daily! Check out what we've covered over 1,000 posts!
I love Paul Simon’s music. One of my favorite songs of his is Mother and Child Reunion. Of course, I’m such an eDiscovery nerd that every time I think of that song, I think of keeping email and attachment families together. If you don’t remember the Mother and Child Reunion, you might provide an incomplete production to opposing counsel.
We’ve referenced Ralph Losey’s excellent e-Discovery Team® blog several times before on this blog – it’s a great read and you won’t find a blog that gets more in depth than his does (he has also been gracious enough to participate in our thought leader interview series for the last three years). And, as Ralph has demonstrated before, he has a sense of humor when it comes to electronic discovery.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog