Prepared by Aubrey Owens, Superior Document Services, for educational purposes only. Presented February 25, 2009 to the Paralegal Studies Program at JSRCC.

Surviving Technology 2009: EDRM & The Paralegal

Paralegal

Paralegals provide invaluable aid to attorneys in the litigation process. Litigation paralegals are the backbone of the trial team,

coordinating the thousands of details that must be accomplished before, during and after trial.

One of a paralegal’s most important tasks is helping lawyers prepare for closings, hearings, trials, and corporate meetings.

Paralegals might investigate the facts of cases and ensure that all relevant information is considered. They also identify

appropriate laws, judicial decisions, legal articles, and other materials that are relevant to assigned cases. After they analyze

and organize the information, paralegals may prepare written reports that attorneys use in determining how cases should be

handled. If attorneys decide to file lawsuits on behalf of clients, paralegals may help prepare the legal arguments, draft

pleadings and motions to be filed with the court, obtain affidavits, and assist attorneys during trials. Paralegals also organize

and track files of all important case documents and make them available and easily accessible to attorneys.

Information Management

The collection and management of information from one or more sources and the distribution of that information to one or

more audiences. This sometimes involves those who have a stake in, or a right to that information. Management means the

organization of and control over the structure, processing and delivery of information.

Getting your electronic house in order to mitigate risk & expenses should electronic discovery become an issue, from initial

creation of electronically stored information through its final disposition.

Sources of Discoverable Information:

1. Readily Accessible – maintained in the normal course of business

a. Paper Records

b. Electronic Records

i. Graphic / Image Files

ii. Audio / Video

iii. Emails

iv. Chat Logs

v. Cell Phones

2. Inaccessible or Requires Forensics

a. Archived Tape Data

b. Deleted Data

Governance of Discovery:

1. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

2. State & Circuit Courts

3. Regulatory Agencies (Internal Investigations)

4. Congressional Acts (GLBA , HIPAA, PCI DSS, Sarbanes-Oxley Act, etc)

Categorization of Information:

1. Responsive

2. Privilege

3. Non-Responsive

Prepared by Aubrey Owens, Superior Document Services, for educational purposes only. Presented February 25, 2009 to the Paralegal Studies Program at JSRCC.

Electronic Discovery Reference Model:

EDRM develops guidelines and standards for e-discovery consumers and providers. From the original model to the 2008-2009

projects, EDRM has helped e-discovery consumers and providers reduce the cost, time and manual work associated with e-

discovery.

Identification: Locating potential sources of ESI & determining its scope, breadth & depth.

Preservation: Ensuring that ESI is protected against inappropriate alteration or destruction.

Collection: Gathering ESI for further use in the electronic discovery process (processing, review, etc.)

Processing: Reducing the volume of ESI and converting it, if necessary, to forms more suitable for review & analysis.

Review: Evaluating ESI for relevance & privilege.

Analysis: Evaluating ESI for content & context, including key patterns, topics, people & discussion.

Production: Delivering ESI to others in appropriate forms & using appropriate delivery mechanisms.

Presentation: Displaying ESI before audiences (at depositions, hearings, trials, etc.), especially in native & near-native forms.

Prepared by Aubrey Owens, Superior Document Services, for educational purposes only. Presented February 25, 2009 to the Paralegal Studies Program at JSRCC.

Litigation Readiness Technology…Software as a Service (Solution):

The most common challenge facing litigants is how to effectively and efficiently identify potentially responsive documents with

accuracy. No longer is it just as simple as skimming across 10 boxes of paper docs containing 25,000 sheets in less than 8 hours.

Today, litigants need to review 10GB of eDocs which is the equivalent to thousands of electronic files. That equates to more

than 650,000 sheets of paper. It would take more than 208 hours to manually review (8 days for 2 case clerks to sift through

just to pass up the chain for 2nd and 3rd reviews).

Search and Retrieval technology has provided the means for litigants to identify relevant data with a sense of accuracy and

confidence. Keyword searching is the most common format used to cull data in an effort to narrow the scope of documents

deemed relevant for review. Keywords are created and agreed upon by all parties based on the scope of the case as well as

intelligence gained during meet and confer conferences.

Conceptual searching provides litigants with the ability to use taxonomies to create categories of documents based on terms of

similar meaning based on documents identified as relevant from keyword search results. Conceptual searching is designed to

further narrow the scope with potentially relevant document strings based on content and other like factors. Concept

searching is gaining popularity in eDiscovery review protocols, for when used properly, the identification of "Hot Docs"

becomes less of a burden.

Using the proper search and retrieval solution is critical to wading through the sea of eDocs as it relates to time and money.

SaaS and The Stages of Discovery

Identification using Early Case Assessment Models:

• Road map of discoverable sources for both Paper and Electronic

• Develop case budgets

• Develop case strategy

Preservation & Collection of Data:

• Limited by the scope of Discovery. See FRCP Rule 26(f)

• Document Sweeps

• Electronically Stored Information

• Chain of Custody

Processing, Review and Analysis:

• De-duplication

• Culling via Keyword Term & Conceptual Searching

• Native File Review

• Localized and Hosted document repositories

Production:

• Agreed upon format between Parties. See FRCP Rule 26(f)

• Paper and/or Electronic

• Metadata

• Deliverable Media