Monday, May 24th, 2010
From an article at litigationsupporttoday.com
The days when an attorney had to touch every document in a collection are gone. The volume of data in a typical case is simply too vast for such an outdated approach. Instead, forward-thinking organizations perform non-substantive reviews – those conducted for purely defensive purposes such as privilege, relevance, and responsiveness determinations—using automated technologies.
Tags: Collection, culling, e-discovery, eDiscovery, electronic discovery, ESI, iron mountain, litigation, metadata, onPoint, responsive, review, stratify
Posted in Bill Tolson, eDiscovery | No Comments »
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, May 19th, 2010
Over the last two years, the trend has been to bring some or all of the eDiscovery process in-house, mainly to save money…large amounts of money. This movement to bring eDiscovery in-house has risks associated with it, the risk of not fully being able to effectively meet all the process requirements i.e. not finding/recognizing all ESI that could be responsive or privileged. Many organizations have tried to bring eDiscovery in-house by relying on their current infrastructure solutions.
Tags: e-discovery, eDiscovery, electronic discovery, iron mountain, keyword, litigation, metadata, onPoint, responsive, startify
Posted in Email Archiving | No Comments »
---------------------------------------------------------------------