Entries by Jeff Johnson

, ,

The Three-Legged E-Discovery Model

Inhouse counsel typically provide for their e-discovery needs by having a partnership with a hosting vendor who provides processing and hosting for major cases and who generally bills based on the volume of gigabytes or number of files processed. However, the best way to manage costs is to add a third role – a consultant […]

Unpacking Embedded Objects Can Create Clutter, Inflate E-Discovery Costs

Decisions on processing embedded objects in e-discovery can increase clutter and costs, sometimes in unexpected ways, e.g., inflating per-document pricing arrangements. The best approach in any given case is usually to make informed decisions by examining some of those embedded objects before they are loaded into a final review platform. Embedded objects are of course […]

The 10 Steps of Early Case Analytics

Quantum regularly employs the following “10 Steps of Early Case Analytics” in civil cases: 1. Run visual analytics and advanced pattern matching on a representative custodial sample to help test key terms (see the influential Blair & Maron study to help understand the limitations of key term search) 2.  Initial Search Term Report (STR) 3.  […]

Big Files, Big E-Discovery Cost Savings (Sometimes)

Reducing e-discovery costs involves being able to use various cost reduction strategies depending on the circumstances of each case. One of those strategies is to be aware of the extent to which there are large files being considered for processing in a final review platform. To use an extreme example, if there was one file […]

,

E-Discovery Issue Coding: Good Idea But…

The idea behind issue coding is a good one: When preparing for depositions or trial or summary judgement, attorneys would be able to pull up the documents that support or refute or maybe just provide good context for specific issues. It’s a way to select key bits of evidence from large amounts of data, much […]

, ,

E-Discovery Process Improvement: The After-Action Audit

Process improvement involves an ongoing effort to identify what’s working well and identify what could be improved. In e-discovery, it’s sometimes painfully obvious when things didn’t work well, e.g., a production deadline is missed or sensitive data is produced. However, it’s not always obvious what could be improved – it’s hard to identify potential improvements […]

,

Eating at the E-Discovery Diner: Buffet or à la Carte?

There is a difference of opinion about the best way for corporations to buy e-discovery services. One view could be characterized as the “single-throat-to-choke” approach which focuses on accountability – the corporation wants to have a single party take complete responsibility for everything from collection through production so there’s no question who’s at fault if […]

Litigation Burn Rates, Early Analytics & Pricing Models

Corporations are painfully aware that litigation can burn a lot of money. The good news is that the use of early analytics in litigation combined with new pricing models can significantly reduce discovery review costs, usually one of the largest litigation cost elements. Early use of analytics can greatly lower the volume of files sent […]

Search Terms & Semantic Range

The meaning of a search term can vary, depending on social construct and context. It goes without saying (but I’ll say it anyway : ) that the terms “trunk of a tree”, “trunk of a car” and “trunk of an elephant” mean very different things! When it comes to key terms in the context of […]

Five Low-Cost, Attorney-Friendly Ways to Cull Email in E-Discovery

E-discovery is expensive with email and its attachments typically being the most prevalent data types. Here are five low-cost, low-tech, lawyer-friendly tools that can be used to cull emails prior to going to a final review platform. Final review platforms, while powerful, are expensive and, compared to these five low-cost tools, are time-consuming to load […]