P2P

46 P E E R T O P E E R : I L T A ' S Q U A R T E R L Y M A G A Z I N E | S P R I N G 2 0 2 2 B y leveraging automation (AI, machine learning, and active learning) and driving collaboration between the disciplines of Information Governance and eDiscovery, the next generation of information professionals is achieving new successes in driving efficiency while reducing risk and costs. Better Together We've all heard the adage that we're "stronger together," and nowhere is that more true of late than the disciplines of Information Governance and eDiscovery. Over the past decade, two major trends have emerged in the information profession: Information Governance has become pervasive, and eDiscovery has become more reliant on advanced technology. Today, these two trends are driving directly into one another, and companies, law firms, and service providers embracing the convergence are reaping the benefits. The goal of bringing the two disciplines together is so engrained in leading professionals that they've updated the currently dominant model in eDiscovery, the EDRM. The current version of the dominant model for eDiscovery provides a visual representation of eDiscovery that includes a solid nod to the discipline of Information Governance. Additionally, we're finding that early adoption of processes that bridge the gaps between eDiscovery and Information Governance delivers new benefits to their programs including: • Optimizing their information environment • Assuring greater compliance • Increasing confidence in privacy capabilities • Supporting security • Finding relevant information faster (saving time and money) There are many other downstream benefits of bringing together IG and eDiscovery, enough that it has sparked an organizational and automated approach in aligning the disciplines for many organizations. Enhancing the Review Processes While no two companies or law firms, or service providers, there are significant commonalities in the processes when we bring the two disciplines together. For example, usually, in the eDiscovery review process, reviewers are generally looking for just a few types of data or documents: • Responsive: These are the items that have to do with the case - they are the 'smoking gun' and everything related to it. • Not Responsive: These are the items someone collected because they weren't sure if they were related to the case. It turns out they're not. • Privileged: These items are subject to attorney-client privilege and, as such, don't need to be delivered to opposing counsel. These three categories are the most commonly utilized because they represent the needs of the case. However, the opportunity exists to stop thinking solely about the matter at hand and broaden the review goals to include the organization's underlying goals. Information Governance professionals can identify many areas where a human review would likely be beneficial to meet these goals. Imagine a review process that includes a PII option to identify PII, regardless of whether the PII is related or unrelated to the case. As the review is happening, it could F R O M T H E I N F O G O V C C T

• Cover