The Case for Pausing in E-Discovery
Building pauses into work can equip us to maintain the ever-important perspective that navigating e-discovery well requires.
November 19, 2018 at 07:00 AM
4 minute read
What type of mindset allows for successful resolution of the complexities faced by IT and legal teams in e-discovery? At the risk of seeming too cheeky or simplistic, the short answer is a clear mind. But how do you get there? Do the opposite of what a busy workday calls for—do not tackle what's in front you right now. Pause. Particularly when things are busy.
It sounds simple, yet it's challenging to do consistently and well. The practice of pausing is not a new one; many have written about this over the years. There are many ways to incorporate pausing and experts who offer support to do it. The key to the pause is to mentally step back and remain present. It remains an increasingly important practice in e-discovery as data volumes grow and the speed of work continues to ramp up.
In a webinar earlier this year, Mark Thorogood, Ian Balom, Stan Pierson, John Rubens, and Ellen Blanchard discussed ways for IT and legal teams to overcome obstacles in e-discovery. They provided practical strategies for tackling e-discovery challenges that come up frequently.
Here's how some of the webinar's key take-aways can be implemented with a practice of pausing.
Maintain perspective: In reflecting on key takeaways of the panel, Mark Thorogood noted: “[B]efore running down the road, take a step back and ask yourself what you are you really trying to achieve and what is the best way to go about producing the desired results. Becoming too focused too soon often results in the premature foreclosure of options.” Building in pauses to reflect will help maintain an appropriate and open perspective throughout the e-discovery lifecycle.
Understand where data and knowledge about data reside: Define the individual skills and subject matter knowledge of each member of the IT team. Confirm the IT team's structure and how technology is used within the organization to help streamline information identification and collection. Maintain active data maps. Systems often change; maintaining an active data map can help keep discovery costs down. When this understanding is established and documentation created, it can often get lost as discovery proceeds. Here's where a practice of pausing will help keep information gathered in the early stages of discovery top of mind throughout the matter, particularly if additional collections are required later in the discovery process and a more holistic inquiry is required.
Cultivate effective communication and collaboration between IT and legal teams: Collaboration between IT and legal teams is increasingly important as technology and data become more complex and attorneys must speak with courts and opposing parties about technology use in matters, particularly predictive coding and AI. Consider who is best suited to have initial and ongoing conversations.
Maintain and understand standard questions regarding expected data formats and access: Certificates, passwords, and authorizations may be required to access data. New data formats, such as those presented by Slack, may require further discussion regarding how to address them in discovery matters. Cultivate a practice of considering whose expertise and feedback may be needed to keep answers to these questions updated.
Building pauses into work can equip us to maintain the ever-important perspective that navigating e-discovery well requires. It can also help us to later form and thoughtfully ask high level questions, such as: what more need we know? Who can connect to make this process more efficient? How can this process be simplified? Are there others who might need to know about this next step? What may be missing from the information collected?
Incorporate brief pauses into work. Then, jump in and apply these insightful practices to overcome challenges in e-discovery.
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. Thanks to Ian Balom and Mark Thorogood for contributions to this article.
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
© 2024 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
- 12nd Circuit Revives Connecticut Lawyers' Challenge to Anti-Discrimination Ethics Rule
- 2Decision of the Day: Firm, Founding Partner Disqualified from Probate Case Amid Investigation on Undue Influence Claim
- 3Federal Judge Grants FTC Motion Blocking Proposed Kroger-Albertsons Merger
- 4Florida Court Rules in Favor of Production Co. in Dispute Over Viral Documentary 'Died Suddenly'
- 5What We Learned From In-House Lawyers in 2024
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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