“Technology can be a great
equalizer in litigation.
With the right technology,
a small firm is evenly matched
with the biggest law firms.”
www.ParalegalToday.com Q4 - 2017 19
step in the initial electronic discovery process;
by outsourcing these tasks, firms save time and
money while obtaining a high quality return.
Choosing an eDiscovery Solution
After collection, the data should then be
imported to an eDiscovery software platform.
The most common platforms are “on demand”
software, also known as “Software as a Service
(SaaS)” or “cloud-based,” such as Lexbe,
Nextpoint, Cloud 9, and Logikulll. There are also
“on-premises” solutions such as Concordance,
Summation, iPro, and Relativity that are hosted
on a firm’s own server. For a small boutique
firm, an on-demand solution can be a great
bargain by providing a platform that can be
accessed from anywhere at any time and is
supported by a customer service team. Ondemand
software solutions usually have no
limitations on the number of users and are
usually more cost effective than on-premises
solutions, as they can often be purchased on a
per case basis – usually by the gigabyte – and
then cancelled when the case is finished. Onpremises
solutions, on the other hand, often
require expensive per user licenses which are
installed on local machines networked on the
firm’s own server, making it difficult to work
from home or when travelling. Both on-demand
and on-premises solutions generally offer the
same basic tools, so firms need to analyze the
features they are most concerned with and
compare the cost benefit of each.
Early Case Assessment and Data Culling
After the data is uploaded to the platform,
reviewers begin the early case assessment stage
and start working with the documents. During
this phase, the eDiscovery software allows
reviewers to quickly and inexpensively reduce
the collected electronic data to include only
documents germane to the case. Before any real
work is done on the documents, eDiscovery
software is used to apply deduplication to the
documents, which will automatically identify
duplicative documents in the database that can
be excluded from review. Like deduplication,
a feature called deNIST eliminates system files
and other file types that have low probability of
having any usable data. These file types can be
suppressed and deleted from a database, saving
reviewers more time by eliminating documents
with no probative value. Next, reviewers will
typically cull electronic data by date ranges,
custodians, and keywords to reduce the number
of documents in the case.
In addition to the early case analysis, the
processing stage of reviewing electronic
data will accurately and quickly process the
electronic data that was collected to prepare
for review and production of the documents.
eDiscovery software platforms support most
native file types: Outlook email (pst, msg),
Microsoft Office Suite files (Word, Excel
PowerPoint), Web (html), Images (jpg, png, tif) and most other common
native files, including container file (e.g., pst, zip, rar) & email (msg)
attachment expansion. This processing step will then generate an index of
the documents, making them fully OCRd and searchable, which significantly
reduces manual review time. During this processing stage, the eDiscovery
software will also automatically extract any related metadata and make it
fully searchable, exposing fields such as “date last modified,” “bcc,” “date
created,” etc. These fields provide powerful information in litigation and are
lost without using an eDiscovery software platform.
In addition to processing the client’s native documents, an eDiscovery
platform is immensely helpful in reviewing incoming productions from
opposing counsel. If a small firm is up against a large firm, there is little doubt
that the small firm will be on the receiving end of a standard eDiscovery
production. These productions vary, but are typically in the form of single
page TIFF images with load files, pdfs, and/or native files. Leveraging
the technology of an eDiscovery platform when receiving these types of
production will be invaluable, as it will allow for quick uploading and
indexing of documents, making them easy to search and review – which is
crucial with a boutique firm’s limited staff and firm pretrial deadlines.
Document Review – Coding and Methodologies
Once the documents are processed, they then need to be reviewed and coded
in preparation for production. The goals of document review are:
1) Coding documents accurately, quickly, and cost effectively;
2) Carefully identifying responsive, privileged, and attorney’s-eyes-only
documents; and
3) Searching, identifying, and issue coding key documents to aid
in preparing for future briefs, hearings, and ultimately trial.
Small firms have the added stress of limited staff to review the documents, so
ensuring the platform provides features to speed up the review of documents
is key to being able to run a case through review with limited man power. It is
also important to obtain adequate training on the software to understand the
platform’s review features to eliminate any problems before the production
deadline. An eDiscovery platform enables reviewers to quickly identify
responsive and privileged documents. Bulk coding of privileged documents
based on name and keyword searches will reduce substantial time from the
total review. Reviewers can also create custom fields specific to the individual
case issues, thus increasing coding capability. This aspect is especially helpful
when preparing for depositions, drafting briefs, and organizing documents
prior to hearings and trial.
There are several methodologies that can be used when reviewing documents
in an eDiscovery software platform that are dependent on various factors;
review methodologies should be determined by the case size, type, and budget.
In a linear review, reviewers read, review, and code documents one at a time.
Large firms typically use contract attorneys to handle this type of review.
A keyword search review uses keywords to identify responsive and
privileged documents. This particular review process is often iterative and
depends on the reviewer’s understanding of the contents of the documents,
company jargon, and ability to form accurate Boolean search commands.
/www.ParalegalToday.com