Digital White Papers

I L T A W H I T E P A P E R | L I T I G A T I O N A N D P R A C T I C E S U P P O R T 58 C O N Q U E R I N G E M A I L I N E D I S C O V E R Y : H O W D A T A A N A L Y T I C S A R E C H A N G I N G T H E G A M E review workflows that make use of "inclusive" message indicators serve up only the inclusive messages for review. This can amount to meaningful reduction in what reviewers need to put eyes on to fully understand the substance of the email communication. Estimates vary, but some case studies tout 40-50% as the average reduction in what needs to be reviewed if only inclusive mail is presented, clearly a major step forward. That said, this approach isn't without challenges. For instance, decisions must be made about what to do with the non- inclusive messages. Are they produced without being reviewed? Are they swept in based on decisions related to the conversation? Can counsel negotiate an "inclusive message only" production strate with the other side? • Consistency of assessments and privilege calls: The ability to group and organize conversations can be a helpful tool in ensuring coding and redaction decisions are handled consistently. Consider how privileged documents would be identified and redacted if emails were reviewed one by one. With threading, if you work to QC privileged documents and include related thread items, it may expose places where redactions on earlier messages were inadvertently omitted in the later messages that would have subsumed the redacted content. Similarly, you may find instances where participants in an attorney- client communication changed later in the conversation, perhaps introducing a third party or obscuring the presence of attorneys visualization of email threading and ready accessibility to other review functions distinguish various email threading software products from one another and provide a glimpse of how analytics can be leveraged in future efforts. Using threading for review: Things to consider Although threading helps establish the connections among disparate emails in a collection, relationships are still complex. In order to understand the benefits of email threading, it is helpful to understand just how it can help a review workflow. Email threading offers up quite a bit of additional information that can help speed up the review of the documents, including the determination of whether an email has unique content. If emails with unique content can be identified, and emails that are subsumed by others (and thus are not unique) can also be identified, the review workflow can be refined significantly. Threading can identify the emails that possess the most "inclusive" (unique) information (e.g., documents with attachments, the last email in a conversation, etc.) as opposed to those that are "non-inclusive" (either duplicative or subsumed in the inclusive emails), and therefore do not present anything you cannot find by reading the inclusive emails. What does this concept have to do with a review workflow? Consider the following: • Accelerating responsive review: Usually, Estimates vary, but some case studies tout 40-50% as the average reduction in what needs to be reviewed if only inclusive mail is presented, clearly a major step forward.

• Cover