Data Minimization.Defensible Culling Techniques 04.03.09

1. Data Minimization: Defensible Culling Techniques Kevin Nugent Regional Sales Director Friday, April 03, 2009 2. About Kevin ã With Encore since January 2008 and…
of 23
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  • 1. Data Minimization: Defensible Culling Techniques Kevin Nugent Regional Sales Director Friday, April 03, 2009
  • 2. About Kevin • With Encore since January 2008 and based in Washington, DC, as Regional Sales Director, Kevin is responsible for managing sales team and business development activities throughout the Eastern Region. • Kevin has 20 years of experience in the management services & e-Discovery industries. • He has worked with many of the leading Am Law 200 firms & Fortune 500 companies. • He previously worked for Xerox, Pitney Bowes, IKON Office Solutions and Capital Legal Solutions. • Kevin holds a B.S. in Public Administration from Eastern Michigan University. • He is a board member of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. 2
  • 3. About Encore • Recognized as a Top 10 eDiscovery Service Provider in the 2007 and 2008 Socha-Gelbmann Survey. • Web Repository hosts over 3,000 active databases exceeding 140 TB of data. • Largest Channel Partner for Concordance, iConect and soon Clearwell. • In-depth experience working with law firms, corporations and most federal government agencies. • Technology agnostic approach to meeting our clients needs. • Only National eDiscovery Services Provider to establish a dedicated Subprime Services Unit addressing the specific needs of companies and corporations impacted by the mortgage and credit crisis.
  • 4. Encore Discovery Solutions National Coverage with Local Support Washington DC New Jersey Chicago Los Angeles Newport Beach San Francisco Bay Area Portland Denver Austin Houston San Antonio Phoenix: • Company Headquarters • NOC (National Operations Center) • SAS-70 Certified Data Center
  • 5. Encore Discovery Solutions Discovery Lifecycle Solutions
  • 6. Fact: ESI Spending In 2009, In House Legal Counsel will spend on average $500,000 annually on: 1. ESI Planning 2. Practice Management 3. Electronic Discovery * Fulbright & Jaworski 2008 Litigation Trends Survey 6
  • 7. Fact: What Areas Concern You Most? According to a recent survey conducted on 325 representatives, the two leading areas of concern for in-house counsel in 2009 are: Cost Management Electronic Discovery * Fulbright & Jaworski 2008 Litigation Trends Survey 7
  • 8. 8
  • 9. Significant Decisions For EDiscovery Victor Stanley Inc. v. Creative Pipe Inc. On May 29, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a lengthy and noteworthy ruling regarding the discovery of “electronically stored information” or “ESI.” The court held that the defendants waived the attorney- client privilege and work-product doctrine with respect to 165 separate documents. The case is particularly instructive because it describes in detail the multiple steps that a litigant should take in order to: (1) protect against the inadvertent disclosure of privileged ESI; (2) preserve the privileged status of ESI in the event that it is inadvertently disclosed; and (3) defend the methodology used to search for relevant ESI.
  • 10. The Defensibility Decision Defensibility Collaboration Best Practices 10
  • 11. The Collaborative Search Approach • The parties, presumably as part of the meet and confer process must “confer with their opposing party in an effort to identify a mutually agreeable search and retrieval method. This minimizes cost because if the method is approved, there will be no dispute resolving its sufficiency, and doing it right the first time is always cheaper than doing it over if ordered to do so by the court.” 11
  • 12. E-Discovery Best Practices Best Practices & Data Driven Search Approach: In order to have a • defensible methodology in the absence of collaboration a party needs to: – “be aware of literature describing the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies, such as The Sedona Conference Best Practices ,…. and select the one that they believe is most appropriate for its intended task.” – And, if their selection is challenged, then they should expect to support their position with “affidavits or other equivalent information from persons with the requisite qualifications and experience, based on sufficient facts or data and using reliable principles or methodology.” – Finally, they should do appropriate levels of data sampling and quality assurance to test core search assumptions. 12
  • 13. Taming The E-Discovery Beast Enterprise EDD costs are skyrocketing and the need to rein them in is a top concern The $6M example: Fannie Mae Sec. Litig., 552 F.3d 814 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ● 400 search terms – resulting in hits on over 80% of the emails ● 600,000 documents reviewed with 50 contract attorneys ● And, the non-party (Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight) was still held in contempt 13
  • 14. Approaches to Reducing Enterprise E- Discovery Costs 1. Control information propagation 2. Delete/destroy when possible 3. Review cheaper: utilize contract/off-shore review attorneys 4. Review faster: utilize advanced review technologies 5. Review less: utilize defensible data reduction technologies 6. Perform early case assessments 7. Bring more processing, analysis & review in-house 14
  • 15. Facts: Data Minimization Strategies Utilizing data minimization strategies and solutions lowers e-discovery processing costs by reducing the volume of data to be examined during each phase of the discovery process. In large, document-intensive cases, a 40% to 80% data reduction can be achieved, allowing counsel to receive data in a fraction of the time traditionally required. This process makes collected data available for pre-case assessment and analysis virtually as soon as it has been gathered.
  • 16. Forensic Collection & Analysis Targeting The Custodial Population Targeted Custodians Outside Vendors & Consultants Admin. Asst. & Other Executives Staff & Clerical Personnel 16
  • 17. Forensic Collection & Analysis Collection Methods Cost Risk Self collection by corporate/internal IT staff MODERATE Vendor collection of ESI making a copy HIGH Vendor collection of forensic image of all relevant custodian units and servers Vendor collection of ESI forensically imaging MODERATE targeted files 17
  • 18. Best Practices: 5 Steps To Data Minimization I. • What file types are included? Collected ESI III. • File Type List Analysis • What if file name is changed? • File Signature Analysis • Duplicates removed or suppressed? • Attachments versus loose files Filter by File Type IV. • How about forwarded emails Filter by Date •Black box versus Interactive •Knowing the data augments knowing the issues System and Program File •Stemming •Zip files, embedded files, etc. Removal (De-NIST) Smart De-duplication Keyword Filtering V. II. Advanced Analytics •Know data before processing •Email threads • Remove known program files •Domain filtering • NIST list •Participant analysis & filtering • Extensions for proprietary •Conversations software •Topics
  • 19. Traditional Approach to E-Discovery Presents Three Significant Challenges 1. Is early case assessment really EARLY? 2. Does blind culling result in TOO MUCH DATA? 3. Are your search results DEFENSIBLE?
  • 20. Clearwell Reduces Cost, Time and Risk of E- Discovery Rapid Processing Case • 3-5X faster processing Documents • Comprehensive de-duplication across all case documents • Automated processing, eliminating manual effort Client Machines Search, Cull-Down & Early Case Assessment • Superior culling and filtering (by domain, sender, recip.) • Advanced analysis by discussion threads, topics, groups • Defensible search: sampling, testing and iterative refinement Email Servers First Pass Review • Rapid reviewing, tagging and exporting • Productivity tracking and reporting Files/Servers • Pre-built integration with review platforms Time Archives 20
  • 21. Enterprise Search Technology is a “Black-Box”, Inhibiting Defensibility of E-Discovery Search 2TB Collected ?? Client Machines 1.2TB For Review Email Servers • No visibility into how or why the results were produced De-Duplication • Refining searches takes days Keyword • Difficult to Range Date document the search Files Servers refinement process Custodian • Keyword searches can be over or under inclusive Archives
  • 22. E-Discovery Search Needs to Become More Transparent 2TB Collected • Provide visibility into how results are produced • Reduce over and under- 200GB inclusiveness For Review • Speed up search testing and refinement • Automate documentation 22
  • 23. Our eDiscovery Volume Reduction Calculator is available at: This tool can help you determine how data minimization can reduce your discovery costs and shorten your electronic discovery processing time. Thank you for joining us Kevin P. Nugent Regional Sales Director 202.445.9343
  • We Need Your Support
    Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

    Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

    No, Thanks