Relativity

ESI Agreements cover the full gambit of e-discovery issues, from preservation expectations to production specifications. Sometimes, these agreements include an overview of the process by which the parties will identify the universe of potentially responsive documents by using specific date ranges, identifying priority custodians and developing proposed search terms. Adding another layer of complexity, this discussion is often had in a vacuum before the parties even know how much data their clients have. Coming up with criteria that identifies the relevant documents, but is not overly broad, in this vacuum can be difficult. However, the process is important because the date range, custodians and terms will inevitably dictate how much data is collected, processed and reviewed, which can significantly affect any litigation budget.

Assigning a single unique name to identify an individual has created problems that precede the inception of e-discovery. Think of Santa Claus, St. Nicholas, St. Nick, Noel or simply Santa. These variations are associated with a unique individual and yet, our society has been using different names to refer to him since before we were born. In e-discovery, identifying individuals with information relevant to a dispute is one of the first and most important steps we go through at the inception of a case. As such, the identification of the different names for these individuals is critical to ensuring we do not miss potentially relevant files. 

COVID-19 has changed the world we live in. People are working from home, students are attending classes online, and all group events are handled remotely. For those of us who work in the E-Discovery field things have changed also. While we are facing new challenges, we are also finding interesting new opportunities to conduct our work more efficiently, and everything we are learning will inform our work even after the pandemic is over. 

In my experience as an e-discovery project manager, I’ve found that one of the primary reasons for lengthy document reviews is the need to redact documents. While the extent to which redactions will be needed may not be known at the outset of a review, good project management should include recognizing when and what type of redactions may be needed. Factors to consider include the type of case, the extensive nature of the collection process, the type of files processed for review, the stipulations agreed to in the ESI protocol and protective order, the sophistication of the legal teams involved, the contentious nature of the dispute and, perhaps of equal importance, the technology available to apply those redactions.

Last fall, I had the pleasure of speaking on a panel at the 2019 Relativity Fest entitled “Why Lawyers SHOULD Be Luddites.” It was a lively discussion about whether lawyers should be luddites, whether robots would be taking attorney jobs, should attorneys learn to code, and how to future-proof yourself. Opinions were split but what struck me the most was that a majority - if not all – of the attendees wanted to learn how to future-proof themselves. In this blog I offer tips on how to take advantage of technologies to do just that.

WINSTON-SALEM, NC (October 24, 2019) -- Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton is excited to announce that its LitSmart® AutoTasker app has been awarded the “Best Innovation: Law Firm or Corporation” at the 6th Annual Relativity Innovation Awards ceremony. The awards ceremony concluded the 10th annual Relativity Fest user conference hosted in Chicago.