1 / 18

In-sourcing vs. Outsourcing eDiscovery & Litigation Support Good Idea or Bad?

In-sourcing vs. Outsourcing eDiscovery & Litigation Support Good Idea or Bad?. Introduction. Today’s Panelists Bil Kellermann of Wilson Sonsini Mark Reichenbach of Proskauer Rose Danny Thankachan of Thompson & Knight Background on panel's Practice Support environments

kalea
Download Presentation

In-sourcing vs. Outsourcing eDiscovery & Litigation Support Good Idea or Bad?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. In-sourcing vs. Outsourcing eDiscovery & Litigation SupportGood Idea or Bad?

  2. Introduction • Today’s Panelists • Bil Kellermann of Wilson Sonsini • Mark Reichenbach of Proskauer Rose • Danny Thankachan of Thompson & Knight • Background on panel's Practice Support environments • Number of people in their department

  3. Scope of Discussion • Collection • Processing • Hosting • Post-production litigation support

  4. How to Decide

  5. Why In-Source? • Better service • Better client value • Cost containment • Risk mitigation • Efficiency • Effectiveness • Control

  6. Why not In-Source? • Processing limitations • Handling exceptions • Capacity • Write offs • Collection might be bad • Recent rulings • Investment Cost Barrier • Cost-center budget constraints • Shared-cost • Shared risk – ringed defense • Learning curve and lack of expertise • Moore’s Law

  7. How to In-Source Effectively? • Scope of services • Billing • Buy in • Internal Marketing • Ease of engagement • End-to-end AND point-source engagement

  8. Specific thoughts about each phase in the scope of discussion • Level of capacity • Proper Infrastructure • Sequester data from firm • Sequester data by client • Redundancy & Backup • Staff Training & Certification • CCE • ACEDS • Do's and Don'ts

  9. Case StudiesUnderstanding the Variables • Volumes • Processing Volume vs. • Hosting Volume vs. • Production Volume • Volumes are not linear(!) • Technical Complexity • Do we have the “know-how” to handle this kind of data? • Deadlines

  10. Case Study 1“No Brainer” • Facts: A contract issue between businesses focused on legal issues. • Volume: “Low” • The definition of “Low” volume is specific to your environment • Technical Complexity: “Low” • MS Exchange/Outlook PST files, and MS Office documents • Deadlines: Usually pretty reasonable 11

  11. Case Study #2 • Facts: Labor dispute where employee alleges harassment or discrimination. • Concerns: Proper preservation and collection of e-mail/workstations may be critical. (Outsource) • Volume: Low (5-10 custodians) • [Not Walmart] • Technical Complexity: Low • Deadlines: Reasonable

  12. Case Study #3 • Facts: Oil & Gas contractual dispute • Concerns: Often high value litigation • Volume: Medium (20 – 30 custodians) • Technical Complexity: Medium • Oil & Gas work includes handling of very large maps, well logs, complex engineering materials, and old/fragile paper documents • Deadlines: Reasonable • longer lead times may be required due to the special handling required which increases deadline pressure.

  13. Case Study #4 • Facts: Patent litigation alleging infringement in source code • Concerns: High value / High complexity • Volume: High (100+ GB to 1+ TB) • Technical Complexity: Very High • Client environment is often UNIX, creating significant processing and production challenges. • Source code compressed sizes are tiny, but expand dramatically when extracted • Deadlines: Challenging

  14. Best Case Scenario • Facts: Client is a third party to a litigation responding to subpoena. Judge threatens sanctions and arrest, and imposes a 10 day production deadline. Very complex issue coding and privilege designations are required. • Challenge: Collect, review, and produce data from multiple custodians in 10 days. • Steps: • Client IT extracted entire mailboxes for custodians and provided them on a rolling basis • Litigation Support processed and culled on date ranges and made available for review on a rolling basis • Review team of 12+ attorneys began relevance review within 48 hours, and completed privilege review within 6 [long] days. • Stats: 350K docs / 44GB collected, 27K docs reviewed, 4K docs produced • Outcome: SUCCESS • Success Factors: • Associates were experienced on the review platform • Available resources / capacity • Assistance of firm IT to handle technical surprises

  15. Worst Case Scenario • Surprises(!) • Changing deadlines • Increasing volumes • Challenging data • Project Creep • The ever growing case…

  16. Wrap Up • Dispelling Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt

  17. Q&A

More Related