5 Steps to Mapping Out an Efficient E-Discovery Review Plan
Without collaboration threading the pieces together, e-discovery costs can spike and potential issues abound. But how do we do that when review gets busy?
October 10, 2018 at 07:00 AM
5 minute read
Collaboration is more important than ever to achieve cost-effective, efficient discovery. The e-discovery industry offers impressive technologies, skilled technologists, and a plethora of knowledge on how to conduct e-discovery well. Without collaboration threading the pieces together, e-discovery costs can spike and potential issues abound. We talk about collaboration a lot, but how do we do that when review gets busy? As Geof Vance, Rachael Philbin, Tony Baskin, and James Jansen laid out in a webinar on document review, there are many key considerations for successful document review detailed below. The thread of collaboration runs through these.
1. Invest in fact-gathering and early communication.
Start collaboratively! Have conversations with as many technologists, attorneys, and IT professionals early to determine who can best assist with key components of preparing for and executing review. Specifically, consider compiling a team of key people who can individually:
- Provide information about the data for review, such as key custodians and data locations.
- Ensure the review and discovery plans consider proportionality.
- Define data collection recommendations, including whether data must be preserved versus immediately collected. If data has been collected or searched, understand what tools were used to search and what steps were taken to search data. Sometimes, it may be prudent to recollect data to execute the requisite search parameters to pull a complete set of documents for review. Programs may index documents differently, which can cause different documents for review.
- Consider the technical and legal aspects of discovery stipulations.
Take the time with this team to understand what is already in the document set, how it ended up there, and how this impacts both later review and overall review and discovery costs. If discussions later unearth that some data was not appropriately identified, consider whether there are other areas that require further discussion.
2. Use technology to its fullest potential.
Gather the technologists and attorneys together to present the unique matter issues and discuss the potential technology solutions. Confirm that everyone on the team understands what is possible. After everyone is clear about possibilities, select the right technology to meet matter security, scale, and customization needs with proportionality in mind. Maximize the technology workflows available with the selected technology to organize and structure review efficiently; do not leave technology features on the table if they will help make review more efficient and cost-effective For example, consider using structured analytics in some form for all matters.
Other specific suggestions that panel offered include: employ email threading to reduce review of redundant email thread content, use domain parsing to remove non-responsive content, and cluster opposing party productions.
3. Clarify special review considerations.
Ask the right questions of the technology, the technology professionals and attorneys early in the planning phase to determine if special review workflows will be required later in review. Consider these questions:
- Do the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) apply to your data?
- Will there be a source code review?
- Do you anticipate having to pull data out of a proprietary software program?
- How will time zones factor into your review and discovery plan?
- Are there documents in foreign languages that require review?
- Are there privacy considerations?
Determine whether special workflows or review attorneys with particular skills will be required. Discussing how these workflows will be managed will prevent bottlenecks, conserve costs, and allow more time for unanticipated issues.
4. Focus on quality control.
As with all phases of discovery, plan early and then be flexible as QC proceeds. Establish clear communication channels and responsibilities. Encourage review teams to discuss ideas and question review instructions. This may sound like it will take time. It will. It will also open up channels of communication between managing attorneys and review attorneys that can affect how QC proceeds. For example, additional privilege search terms or key documents may be unearthed. Be sure that a good system exists to surface these efficiently.
Incorporate technology into your QC process as much as possible. Consider using analytics in QC processes to leverage technology to support human review. Use standard features of review platforms, such as near duplicate document identification, to QC privilege documents. Plan to revisit QC plans as the review progresses to determine what adjustment must be made. Document QC plans as they progress and are completed.
5. Run post-production analysis.
Take the time to collaborate with key team members to recycle helpful data and decisions, gather metrics, and incorporate lessons learned. Lead a meeting to debrief what went well and what could be improved. Assign team members to make updates to templates or lessons learned memos on a rotating basis. Lessons learned could include updates to workflows, redefinition of roles or new roles, or an analysis of where technology worked well and where it could be improved or used differently.
Helen Stocklin-Enright is the development manager for Perkins Coie's E-Discovery Services & Strategy practice. She manages implementation of technology and operational initiatives within ESS, focusing on the strategic application of technology to conserve costs and enhance efficiencies.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Reviewing Judge Merchan's Unconditional Discharge
- 2With New Civil Jury Selection Rule, Litigants Should Carefully Weigh Waiver Risks
- 3Young Lawyers Become Old(er) Lawyers
- 4Caught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
- 5Top 10 Developments, Lessons, and Reminders of 2024
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250