E-Discovery Best Practices

There is often a lot of discussion around the processing and review of documents in a litigation, most likely because these phases end up costing the most money and taking the most time. What is often overlooked, however, is the collection process and how that phase sets the tone for the rest of discovery, including overall case strategy, knowledge gathering and cost thresholds for the case. In this blog, I lay out some best practices that can be followed to collect data in a sound manner while keeping costs reasonable and gathering all relevant information. 

This is Part Three of a continuing series on ESI basics. In this series, we cover some of the terms used most often on the tech-side of e-discovery. In Part One, we provided an overview of PSTs. You can find that article here. In Part Two, we provided a primer on data processing. You can find that article here.  Whether this is an introduction to you or a refresher, and whether you are an attorney, member of an in-house team or data analyst, this information may come in handy in your practice.

Last year, in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois laid out a very detailed protocol for conducting TAR that can serve as a go-by for parties wishing to conduct TAR in their own litigation. If you are considering implementing TAR in your next review, you may want to take a look at this. 

This blog is part one of several regarding how to effectively and efficiently manage electronic discovery in large, complex litigation. It is in these types of matters that special attention to electronic discovery is crucial to the client’s overall success. We begin here with the earliest stages: data identification and preservation.  

Given that data processing is a technical activity, how involved should legal teams be in this phase of discovery? In my opinion, case teams do not need to be experts about document processing tool mechanics (that’s what WE are for!). However, in my experience, legal teams that spend the effort to develop four specific skills end up with robust document databases, efficient reviewers and happy clients. 

This Quarterly Spotlight focuses on Starling Underwood, a Senior E-Discovery Attorney on Kilpatrick's LitSmart E-Discovery Team. Starling joined the firm two years ago and, in addition to his heavy case load, has taken active roles in numerous pro bono and community service projects. Aside from being an excellent lawyer, he is one of the nicest, most thoughtful people you'll ever meet. Scott O'Neal was fortunate to learn more about what makes Starling such a valuable team member and leader.