eDJ Migrated

According to the eDiscoveryJournal analytics, many of you are corporate IT administrators trying to understand these new eDiscovery requirements that your legal department keeps talking about. You provide technology and infrastructure while balancing business requirements against the total cost of ownership. Legal is bound by a different balancing act, cost against risk. This is a fundamental difference between a business unit asking for a document management system and collecting the ESI from twenty laptops for litigation. Many IT administrators tasked with executing collections from their systems have not been given a basic, plain language explanation of the legal requirements for collecting identified ESI when it may be presented as evidence at a later date.

My first article on corporate data collections focused on preserving the content, container and context of native files as found on network shares and desktop folders. Discovery requests are increasingly targeting email archives, content management systems and other semi-structured data sources. Most of these sources include search and retrieval features, so one could assume that this makes them a safer candidate for in-house collections. This is not automatically true and is definitely worth talking through some of the common problems that can lead to incomplete or altered retrievals. The first thing to realize is that these systems were not designed to comply with legal discovery requests as found in the United States. The search and retrieval functionality was added to support a business user seeking to find a few specific email or an IT administrator restoring a larger set of items that were either lost or need to be transferred to a new user. Both of these scenarios stress quick, simple search without needing to verify the accuracy or integrity of the search or restoration.

Conducting defensible eDiscovery collections can be challenging, but will pay off in both the near- and long-terms. What any organization does depends upon their specific maturity level and requirements. In general, though, organizations that want to take control of eDiscovery collection should:

I spent the better part of this past week at the EDRM kickoff meeting in St. Paul, MN. For those of you that aren’t familiar with it, EDRM stands for electronic discovery reference model. The goal of EDRM is to “develop guidelines and standards for e-discovery consumers and providers…helping e-discovery consumers and providers reduce the cost, time and manual work associated with e-discovery.” A lot of great thought leadership has emerged from EDRM, including the well-accepted reference model that provides insight into all the activities that need to happen during eDiscovery.

Everyone may be familiar with the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM), but many of you may not know much about the organization that created this iconic representation of the eDiscovery lifecycle. EDRM turned six this year and has grown to over 300 participants that span providers, firm, corporate and independent discovery practitioners. The record attendance this year (104 participants) reflected the uptick in business and company’s willingness to commit budget to eDiscovery initiatives. The initial EDRM diagram project has grown to nine active projects developing non-commerical eDiscovery resources and guides. George Socha and Tom Gelbmann (of the Socha-Gelbmann Survey) coordinate the twice yearly meetings and tirelessly support all of the group conference calls and web resources throughout the year. The May gathering is a chance to report on project progress and set new goals for the next year. Each project has two to three leaders and 10-90 individual and organizational participants. All public materials are freely available for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States license as long as you properly attribute them to the EDRM project. The projects follow a consensus based approach and participants of all backgrounds and experience levels are welcome.

AIIM's recent report on content analytics and the use cases for it points out good news for the eDiscovery market - more adoption of eDiscovery tools and higher spending in the next 12 months.

In my consulting practice, I frequently work with corporate legal departments to select and prepare their designated ‘IT Custodians’ who will have to sign affidavits and may be deposed/testify as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness. Historically, these designated subject matter experts covered accounting systems, business practices and other complicated areas relevant to the issues at the heart of a matter. The enterprise ESI lifecycle itself has become so complicated that every preservation or collection request may now require a translator to effectively communicate all the implications of system configurations, user actions and discovery technologies on the scope and format of response efforts.

While at the recent EDRM 2010 Kickoff meeting, I was able to get a guided tour of the newly released Relativity Six from Andrew Sieja (CEO) and his team. Having several clients who have standardized on the kCura platform in the last year, it was definitely interesting to see the new features and product direction. I will not try to walk through every new bell and whistle here, as your favorite sales rep is more than happy to dive into that level of detail. Instead, I will try to give you the high level points. Andrew’s goals for this release included improving the analytics integration, review workflow, ‘ECA’ functionality and to extend the platform with a new API. Calling out ‘Early Case Assessment’ drew a spirited round of critical debate on the dubious validity of the term in light of the overuse in the discovery market. Despite the call from George Socha to ban the term from the sales cycle, I can see how cKura’s new Relativity Pivot feature supports many of the typical scope and liability assessment scenarios. The overall goal seems to be a more integrated and mature interface for case managers and power users to automate workflow and extract collection profile characteristics.

There is a great article from Christy Burke of Burke & Company about the eDiscovery disaster that could arise from the BP oil spill. Christy's article is detailed and comprehensive - a must-read for anyone wondering about the eDiscovery implications for the broader market and how to plan for some of those issues. From an information governance perspective, there are some quick takeaways I'd like to list (because this is yet another example of how proactive planning could avert the potential eDiscovery nightmares that can arise from extreme situations like this one):

One of today’s stories from the eDJ (eDiscoveryJournal) news engine reminded me of that first email review. The contract paralegal used the firm email system to complain about a festival and was subsequently sacked for her temerity. I used to call this the ‘5,000 to One Rule’. The first time any corporation attempted an in-house review of journaled or restored email, we would see at least one employee fired or disciplined for every 5,000 email reviewed.