Federal and state courts have weighed in and generally concur that e-discovery must be proportional to the matter. The question remains, what does that actually mean? With data volumes exponentially increasing in scope due to the ever-increasing use of email, texting and social media, how do lawyers create proportional, accurate responses to e-discovery requests? We delved into a side by side analysis of a discovery request utilizing two different workflow methodologies to illustrate the vast difference technology and process can have on the cost of a production. We analyzed two scenarios with the same data set. These produced starkly different economic results.
Scenario “A” followed a more traditional approach to leveraging e-discovery technology and consisted of a single matter and a full collection of custodian inboxes for 10 custodians. Prior to the collection effort, the firm negotiated key terms and date ranges with opposing counsel. The data was processed and any documents that hit on the agreed searches were promoted to a review platform. A single service provider was selected to provide the data processing, hosting, litigation support, and a team of contract attorneys to assist with the first-pass review efforts related to meeting the initial production obligations.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]