Essays

eDiscoveryJournal will be at the AIIM Expo from April 20-22, 2010. The conference will highlight how information management professionals can take leadership roles in eDiscovery initiatives.

I had a chance to speak with Lance Sloves, a Director at Computer Forensic Services, Inc. about forensic collection. He points out that, first, it’s fairly rare for any organization to have well-rounded or proper policies and processes in place for good, defensible collection – that is just the way it is. Second, few organizations possess the expertise in proper data and forensic collection that is required in today’s eDiscovery market. The fact is that many litigators are getting smarter and smarter about collection – and some can smell blood when something has not been properly vetted. And I’ve yet to meet an IT manager who relishes the thought of being an expert witness.

When you consult on discovery issues, you cannot avoid running into retention management initiatives, no matter how hard you try. One of the first Interrogatories on almost every matter asks for a copy of the corporate retention policy and supporting documentation concerning record systems. The problem is that records are no longer boxes of old files kept in offsite storage. In the modern business environment, every piece of ESI has the potential of being considered a ‘record’ or at least evidence. One of my more frequent client conversations starts with, “We need to have a system to apply retention periods so that I can get rid of anything that I do not absolutely need.” Counsel views the seas of unstructured ESI as potential evidence that will cost $1-3 per item to review. So the motivation behind legal’s push for retention management is to reduce discovery cost and risk. The actual goal is to destroy non-record ESI as fast as possible. To that end, I have come to the conclusion that trying to define records and apply retention periods is tackling the problem from the wrong end of the equation. A program of ‘Destruction Management’ that categorizes and destroys non-records seems to be a much more practical initial step toward overall information lifecycle management.

Enough has happened – FRCP Amendments, precedents, scandals – for organizations to understand that it’s time to act vis-a-vis eDiscovery. Tools are evolving to provide real, actual value (despite the fact they still have developmental challenges). And, with an economic recovery, there will be money to spend on addressing the challenges.

In Part 1, I outlined the typical litigation profile questions that would support a realistic needs assessment for a solo attorney or small firm. From a the set of requirements, we explored the basic software packages through the EDRM lifecycle while calling out small firm perspectives. In the intervening weeks, I have tried to track down and get hands on new applications and SaaS offerings that might meet my challenge criteria. The nice folks at QD Documents got me a trial license for their $500 package. The product definitely gives a solo attorney the basic organizational space to code in documents, exhibits, transcripts, filings and all the other working pieces of a matter. Unfortunately, it is really just a nice, clean document tracking and management space, rather than an eDiscovery processing platform. I suppose that you could put URL links in field for native files, but that just feels too much like Concordance. So a good, cost-effective case management tool, but not an answer to my challenge.

On the heels of my writing about the perfect storm brewing in eDiscovery comes good news for all in the market. Recent survey results from the Cowen Group indicate a rise in jobs, plans to purchase software, and plans to purchase outsourced services. The good news is that the data points to wins all around in the market. Organizations benefit by taking proactive steps to reduce the cost of eDiscovery. Software and service providers benefit from increased revenue. And eDiscovery professionals benefit from increased work options and better employment.

During a recent software testing engagement, I ran into an interesting issue with date based searches that could impact your discovery search results. The root of the issue is based in the different ways of representing communication attachments or other multipart items such as Sharepoint/wiki page attachments. In the dark ages of eDiscovery, our software was designed to simulate the myriad physical attachment levels of scanned paper documents. I am not ashamed to recall coding levels of staple, clip and binder groupings back in IPRO ver. 1.5. The system enabled an attorney to determine the exact hierarchical relationship of that individual document to all the others scanned from that box retrieved from Iron Mountain. Newcomers to our field cannot imagine the labor required to manually code in Author, Recipients, Subject and other fields that are now extracted from ESI during processing.

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Barry Murphy. Published: 2010-04-21 09:00:17  Here we sit at the eDiscovery Pavilion inside of the AIIM Expo.  Slowly, but surely, attendees are poking their heads into this area.  It sort of mirrors the real world – information management and IT professionals realize the need to take control of information and the risk it presents, most notably eDiscovery costs.  For too [...]

Old school eDiscovery professionals are used to hitting the big three conferences; Legal Tech, ARMA and ILTA. So I came to the AIIM Info 360 Expo without preconceptions to this conference focusing on ECM technologies, providers and adjacent services. The last several years have reinforced the message to the market that the money and investment is ‘going left’ on the EDRM lifecycle. Review costs still dominate the actual litigation spend, but we all know that discovery starts where the ESI lives, which makes information management initiatives and technologies the best long term bet. The conference is attended by IT admins, records managers and the providers offering anything needed to get records into a system. Every other booth seemed to offer some kind of Sharepoint based workflow application. Microsoft dropped a full training center into the middle of the conference floor and surrounded it with partners. It definitely took the ‘app d’jour’ prize.

As AIIM Expo comes to an end, I’m left feeling like the eDiscovery market is on the precipice of becoming a critical part of the information management market, but is not quite there just yet. There is an excitement and buzz about eDiscovery at the conference, but it is not quite yet a crescendo. Yes, there was an eDiscovery pavilion and we got to meet some cool vendors exhibiting there – Catalyst Repository Systems, El Fresko Technologies, iConect Development, Kroll Ontrack, and Planet Data Solutions. But, many of the mainstream eDiscovery vendors were not at the show at all, either as exhibitors or attendees. And, of the large software vendors present – EMC, IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft, eDiscovery was not an overtly featured capability at their booths. There was even a partner pavilion for Microsoft and the only partners talking about eDiscovery were archiving partners. As we’ve pointed out in other entries, there is a big opportunity for creating eDiscovery solutions for SharePoint; it’s a shame no one is getting out ahead of the curve on that.