Increasingly lawyers are taking advantage of technology to practice in specialized boutique and smaller firm environments. But the rapidly growing size of collections electronically stored information (ESI) presents an increasingly difficult challenge: How to effectively manage these resource-hungry cases without large firm support. What happens when the firm takes on a document-intensive case that its current review and production methods can’t handle? This educational webinar addresses how a boutique firm can effectively manage large cases, meet its deadlines, and avoid being outgunned by larger firms with greater staff and resources.
ESI Growth and Challenges to Smaller Firms
The Trend of Boutique Firms Handling Larger and More Sophisitcated Cases
Leveraging Technology to Manage Bigger Cases
Managing the Large Document Review and Production
Handling Large Incoming Productions
Depos, Dispositive Motions and Trial
Practical Take Aways
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.
Lexbe is the Killer App for Small to Medium Sized Firms, Recorded Demo
Customer Success Stories
A single attorney was recently able to load 2 Terabytes worth of data (millions of pages), perform a privilege review across the entire document set and export a production within 2 weeks, start to finish, in our platform. This solo-practitioner leverages the speed, accuracy, and efficiency of the Lexbe platform to compete against better funded and fully staffed opposing counsel.
Another customer, a medium sized firm, recently realized the power of the Lexbe Uber Index℠ when opposing counsel, an AMLAW 100 Firm, was unable to view mountains of evidence contained in the production they sent over. Opposing counsel’s eDiscovery index was simply not able to dig into the data the way the Uber Index does, giving our client a significant advantage over an imposing adversary.
Key Takeaways from the demo:
DIY– Attorneys choose Lexbe because of the flexibility we offer in self-administering eDiscovery 100% in-house. The DIY capability frees our clients from the delays and costs many of our competitors impose on carrying out various functions.
Free Upload– While our DIY model allows you to upload your own data without added cost, we also offer to upload your data for you as part of an annual plan. By allowing our experts to handle your standard upload at no additional charge your documents are loaded correctly and quickly using our full-speed servers. Moreover, out technical team will identify any deficient productions at that juncture, early in the eDiscovery process, and assist you in requesting the necessary repairs from opposing counsel.
Uber Index– Only Lexbe offers the Uber Index. A concatenated index which includes an OCR index of uploaded files, a text-based native extraction of all text characters, meta-data and translations into a single, searchable database.
Enhanced Search Features– Lexbe has built a number of search tools into the platform to help speed review. Combine saved search, filter results and deploy specialty tools to zero in on hot docs. For example, our Profanity Search Tool was built specifically to help firms engaged in employee or harassment disputes quickly find all instances where inappropriate language was used in a document or email across your entire data set.
Time Lining– Code facts and issues as part of review, keep notes and annotate documents as you go. Our robust time lining tool allows you to reports to see, at a glance, how evidence is building to support your case.
Speed– Lexbe offers a completely scalable solution, meaning that our servers respond with greater server speed when your caseload grows.
Cost– Our price structure offers straightforward, low cost per GB rates. We provide flexible pay-per-month plans or offer discounted rates with an annual plan. You will not find hidden fees- no user fees, per case charges or download costs.
Exploring FRCP Rule 37(e) and Avoiding Spoliation Sanctions
In a recent eDiscovery webinar, Avoiding Spoliation Sanctions in 2017 Under New FRCP Amendments, the Honorable Xavier Rodriguez spoke with Lexbe CEO, Gene Albert regarding the intricacies of Rule 37(e). Judge Rodriguez offered insight into how courts are interpreting Rule 37(e), and how the amendment has changed the landscape for attorneys with regard to data loss and sanctions.
Prior to the FRCP’s 2015 amendments to Rule 37(e) courts were inconsistent in how they imposed sanctions due to lost data. As a result, many attorneys, fearing consequences, opted for a “save it all” approach when a preservation letter landed in their laps. With the growth of data and the high cost of storage, the “save it all” approach became prohibitively expensive.
Given the expense of managing preservation combined with the inconsistent application of sanctions, the FRCP’s 2015 amendments to Rule 37(e) aimed to address the “excessive efforts and money” spent on preservation and also provide a framework in which to evaluate actual damages resulting from lost data.
In the webinar discussion, Judge Rodriguez explained that the FRCP advisory committee suggests that courts consider “proportionality” across the entire spectrum of Rule 37(e). The committee notes for the rule suggest that courts look at the parties’ technical sophistication, their resources, and the weight of the ESI to the claim or defense when considering the appropriate and proportionate remedy.
With proportionality in mind, Judge Rodriguez suggests that a court needs to ask three questions before determining whether there is cause for prejudice (see infographic).
In making this determination, a court will seek to determine how relevant the data loss is to the case and a proportional remedy to the party experiencing prejudice. Remedies could include requiring additional depositions at the spoliating party’s expense or the preclusion of evidence (preventing the spoliating party from entering evidence).
In the webinar, Judge Rodriguez emphasized that intent to deprive must be deliberate. Negligence, even gross negligence, does not necessarily meet the strict requirement of actual intent. If, however, intent is found, the court has three options from which to choose: (A) “presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party;” (B) “instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party;” or (C) “dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.”