Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Cutting the Cost Of e-Discovery

By Thomas Barnett
May 26, 2004

“Save everything!” That's the new corporate mantra in response to tougher regulatory requirements and the growing importance of electronic data discovery in litigation. But is “Save Everything!” the right response? CEOs and CFOs may think they'll sleep better knowing that every bit and byte is being saved ' but wait until the bills come in! That'll be an eye-opener!

So, let's take a look at how we can cut those costs down to size, while still saving everything that needs to be saved. For starters, here are four key steps for taking control over the cost of preserving and processing electronic data for litigation.

  • Weed out the trash. There may be a vast amount of e-data in the company's backup system, but most of it is unnecessary or redundant. A thoughtful approach can relegate backup data to its intended purpose, disaster recovery, not ad hoc data preservation and retention. For existing backup sets where no alternative source exists for data related to a specific litigation, analysis, sampling and testing, can weed out most, if not all, of that unwanted data, with the company paying only to process what's potentially relevant. In a large case, excluding irrelevant and redundant data can result in millions of dollars in savings.
  • Adopt smarter data recovery methods. Companies are storing vast amounts of data ' 100 or more gigabytes of data on a single hard drive, the equivalent of millions and millions of pages of printed data! But just as data storage is getting cheaper and easier, so is data recovery. For example, you can now extract data from a backup tape without going through the time consuming and costly process of recreating the exact environment or system from which it was backed up. What's more, the discovery process keeps improving. The newest search tools and techniques enable legal teams to cull out irrelevant data quickly, leaving more time for in-depth review of data that is pertinent to the case. Cost savings are significant because there is less need to pay high-priced reviewers to waste hours and hours looking at irrelevant or duplicative data.
  • Tailor the method to the case. Some vendors tell corporate counsel that there is only one right way to process e-data (and it costs a lot!). The truth is that companies can adapt their methods to the value, size and timeline of the case, the type of data, and most importantly the size of a reasonable discovery budget. Tailoring the method to the case may require calling upon expert advice, but the savings gained by eliminating unnecessary processing and attorney review time make the investment well worthwhile.
  • Do what is reasonable. Too many companies accept as valid the claim that the cost of electronic discovery should be based simply on the amount of data and the cost of processing that data. In fact, according to basic discovery principles, such as those found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is obligated to do what is “reasonable” for the case, not everything “possible.” Many litigants and electronic discovery vendors approach the problem as a question of “how much will it cost to process my data?” Under the rules and the case law, a more appropriate question would be, “Based on the value of the case and the deadlines, what is a reasonable budget and approach for electronic discovery?”

Why Preserve Electronic Data?

When you boil it down, there are really just three reasons for corporations to preserve any data: operations, litigation and regulation. Let's take a look at all three and see where companies can realize significant savings and avoid the risk of being caught unprepared.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.