Opposing Perspectives in Document Review

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. On the other hand, defendants often have greater access to resources, while plaintiffs pay more attention to prioritizing expenses and making every dollar count towards a favorable outcome.

While both sides share a duty to competently review relevant case documents, goals and methodologies can differ distinctly. This webinar will cover how these different approaches can benefit from specialized document review strategies and technology.

Key Points

  • Is Discovery Different for Plaintiffs and Defendants?
  • Asynchronous eDiscovery
  • Differing Resources
  • Contingency Arrangements
  • Examining Plaintiff and Defendant Discovery Concerns
  • Top Takeaways for Plaintiffs and Defendants

About the Speaker

Gene Albert is the CEO of Lexbe, and a frequent speaker and writer on litigation technology and eDiscovery topics. He is on the Planning Committee of the Texas State Bar eDiscovery Program. Gene has his JD from Southern Methodist University and his MBA from the University of Texas at Austin.

Read More

Best Practices: Technology Assisted Review

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. In many cases, there is little, if any, information about how a specific TAR methodology works, creating potential defensibility blind spots and jeopardizing the progress of your case. How can you trust or account for the results of a mystery process? Alternatively, if a methodology is fully disclosed, case teams can evaluate, explain, and justify outcomes with confidence.

Key Points

  • What is Technology Assisted Review (TAR)?
  • How does TAR/Predictive Coding work?
  • Why use TAR/Predictive Coding?
  • Comparing outcomes: predictive coding vs.and manual review
  • Importance of transparency in TAR applications
  • Benefits of scalability in predictive coding architectures

About the Speaker

Karsten Weber is CTO and Principal, Lexbe LC. Mr. Weber is an eDiscovery consultant and expert and leads the product development at Lexbe. He holds an MBA from the University of Texas and an M.S. Engineering, Danish Technical University.

Read More

Embracing the Power of the Cloud in eDiscovery

Cloud infrastructures provide an unrivalled opportunity to control eDiscovery costs without sacrificing quality, functionality, or security. Firms without large litigation support departments can instantly increase their discovery and review capacities with on demand/SaaS eDiscovery – often allowing them to take on cases they were previously unable to.

When firms make the decision between bringing litigation support and eDiscovery functions in-house or looking for scalable external solutions, there are several questions whose answers weigh heavily on the decision. How big is the firm? Do caseloads support the newly built capacity? Is there capital available to cover the high fixed costs and overhead associated with establishing or expanding an internal support department? Smaller firms consider these questions and often find themselves caught between opportunities to grow and take on larger cases and constraints imposed by the costs associated with establishing the necessary internal infrastructures.

Cloud-based ediscovery technologies provide another option: firms can immediately access massive eDiscovery capacities, expert litigation support professionals, and advanced review capabilities and pay only for what they actually use. Cloud solutions like Lexbe eDiscovery Platform can support document intensive litigation from collection through to trial. All you need is access to a browser and the internet to use most web-based/cloud ediscovery tools.

5KeyFactsCloudeDiscoveryThe Cloud is a term that has developed to describe scaled, non local storage of data. That is, instead of saving a file to a computer’s local hard drive, one can save that file to a centrally managed and expertly maintained hard drive that lives in a highly secure and professionally staffed server facility. The connection between the local computer and files in the cloud is the internet. One major benefit of cloud infrastructure for legal professionals is accessibility. Because your files are stored in the cloud, litigation teams can access them from any internet-capable device. Storing files in the cloud means that being separated from a computer or phone doesn’t really separate you from your data.

In addition to keeping ESI within reach, the cloud also keeps your data out of the hands of unauthorized persons. Data centers specialize in creating the most secure environments in the world with a wide range of measures employed to ensure redundant storage and encrypted access. The largest banks in the world rely on the security of the cloud whose security features are practically inimitable on a local computer. When you hear criticisms of cloud security, it is important to remember that “cloud” is a general, descriptive term and not all cloud providers are providing the same security protocols. It is critical when considering cloud software to ask who the infrastructure partner is to ensure credibility. For instance, Lexbe eDiscovery Platform and services run on AWS SOC III Servers, which were recently named as the sole “leader” in service provider security in a recent Forrester Research Report.

In an eDiscovery context, firms of all size have taken advantage of the accessibility and security benefits offered by the cloud. For small and mid sized firms. these benefits are much more stark and also include substantial cost reductions and efficiencies. It is simply not financially expedient or necessary for smaller firms to pay for expensive in-house installation of software and servers, in addition to hiring additional litigation support staff that will need to manage them locally. There are better options available.

Latest Blog

Subscribe to LexNotes

LexNotes is our monthly newsletter of eDiscovery and legal document management and review tips and best practices.