Author: Jeff Fugitt

Some cases contain a confusing multitude of parties, data custodians, potential deponents, third-party subpoena targets. Keeping track of who’s who can be a challenge. Learn best practices for how to organize and use as a basis for effective eDiscovery, depositions and case chronologies.

One of the more challenging consequences associated with growing ESI volumes in litigation is the increasing frequency and variety of foreign language documents. As business has become more international, so has litigation.

The growing trend of increasingly large, complex data collections and reviews has caused both the time and dollar cost of discovery to explode. This is especially true when attempting to address large volumes of electronically stored information (ESI) with outdated software, systems and workflows.

Plaintiffs and defendants face unique challenges during discovery. A central difference is asynchronous data; plaintiffs have had fewer data collection concerns while defendants have had to manage complex collection and production of vast ESI stores.

Technology assisted review (TAR), also known as predictive coding and computer assisted review, has become a frequently used tool to complete large document reviews quickly and cost efficiently. The promise of fast, accurate computer-assisted coding as a practical solution to increasingly massive collections is encouraging, but understanding various vendor approaches can be confusing and overwhelming.

Whether you are a litigation services provider or internally managing litigation support functions within a law firm or corporate legal department, ESI processing deadlines can often exceed capacity. In order to increase internal capacity, past options have included the purchase of additional processing software licences and local hardware, as well as increased staffing, to marginally increase throughput and meet demand.

Review costs continue to be the dominant portion of discovery expenditure for corporate legal departments and law firms involved in large-scale litigation and government investigations. As the number of documents to be reviewed in any given case continues to grow exponentially, the time to review them has not.

Whether producing in Native, TIFF, PDF, or a blended format, discovery productions are fraught with potential challenges and obstacles that can foil your ability to meet deadlines and satisfy discovery requirements. The webinar also explores different strategies you can use to avoid these common production problems before they unfold plus a variety methods that can be used to get back on track when unavoidable delays do occur.

Increasing volumes of electronically stored information (ESI) in litigation have created the need for highly specialized document management systems to organize and manage discovery review. Though litigation databases have existed for many years, there are more options than ever for legal professionals to choose from that can deliver faster and more cost effective document reviews.

Near duplicate identification, or ‘NearDup’, is a critically important eDiscovery function that can drastically increase the speed and quality of your review by grouping similar documents, maintaining email threads, retrieving unmarked ‘hot’ documents, and preventing the inadvertent release of critical privileged information.

Receiving a production from opposing counsel in TIFF (or TIF) format doesn’t have to require hefty licensing fees, increased personnel costs, or general TIFF confusion. Find out about easier, faster and cost efficient methods of hosting and reviewing large TIFF productions.

Emails and their attachments represent an increasingly significant portion of ESI (Electronically Stored Information) collections and for good reason, too. The hundreds of billions of emails that are sent daily paint a comprehensive picture of our personal and professional lives, so it is no wonder that litigators must thoroughly and effectively review these collections for relevant case material.