Issue link: https://epubs.iltanet.org/i/43390
FIVE KEYS TO CUTTING THE COST OF DISCOVERY at documents and making decisions about their relevance one-by-one. But technologies exist today that can speed that process and make it more accurate. Leveraging the right review technologies for the matter can help bring down the high cost of document review. Some examples of these technologies include software tools that: • Group or cluster documents that are similar to each other, which helps reviewers make faster decisions about the documents. (Depending on the technology being used, "similar" may mean that the actual text found in the documents is similar, or it may mean that the documents contain similar substantive concepts.) • Conduct a "near de-duplication" of the dataset, which means that, if there are documents that are substantively identical to each other (even if they are not technically identical), only one of those documents is reviewed. • Organize emails into "threads", which groups together all the emails in the same thread of conversation, enabling a more efficient review. Another type of technology that can bring down the cost of document review is automated review, where computers analyze and make decisions about the documents. Sometimes called "predictive coding" or "definitive coding," these automated review technologies, when properly applied, have the capacity to lower the expense of document review by reducing the number of documents requiring examination by humans. REDUCE ERRORS AND REWORK Fixing mistakes in the discovery process is costly and time consuming. Two strategies can help minimize this rework. • All work related to discovery should follow a defined, documented process. The process should be carefully considered and established in advance, then outlined in writing. There is always the possibility that the process will need to be adjusted mid-stream as unexpected issues are encountered; changes to the process should be documented as well. The process should be followed consistently, and exceptions to the process should also be documented. The key is to actively manage discovery projects using best practices for project management. The participants must decide and communicate who is responsible for, accountable for, consulted about and informed about each aspect of the project (the responsibility assignment matrix or "RACI" concept in project management). • Litigants should institute quality control for all discovery processes. The appropriate type and amount of quality control (QC) will vary from project to project, but the QC protocol should always be established in advance. Follow the QC protocol consistently, and learn from the mistakes that are uncovered in QC by adjusting your processes accordingly. Where possible, the QC should be strategic, not random. A good QC protocol is designed to find mistakes and fix them before the work product is final. www.iltanet.org Corporate Law Departments 35