Where Analysis and Production Fit In
In the traditional electronic discovery reference model (EDRM), review, analysis, and production are listed as independent e-discovery phases. For the purposes of this guide, we are combining all three into one section since they are all interconnected.
Yet even the creators of the ubiquitous EDRM model acknowledge that 'analysis' can be deployed in many phases of e-discovery, including during early case assessment (ECA), before collection. It's the process of evaluating data sets to determine key information that will help guide the review process. This might include the key topics, custodians, and specific vocabulary that reviewers will need to look out for when conducting their more detailed assessment in the review phase.
The output of the review effort feeds into the production stage of e-discovery, described in greater detail below at the end of this section.
Who is Involved in Review
For corporate litigants, document review is typically handled by outside resources, such as law firms or review service vendors. Review is time consuming and demanding of resources and internal legal departments are usually ill-equipped to handle the process in-house. Moreover, review is heavily associated with case strategy and piecing together the overall litigation "story." These considerations usually fall to a company's outside – or "merits" - counsel, who represent the corporation during the course of litigation and at trial, so having them lead the review effort usually makes the most sense.
There are companies that conduct some review activities in house. Often referred to as a "first pass" review, corporate attorneys may scan documents and make a quick determination on whether or not it's relevant to help guide the subsequent steps and winnow down the document set. Rarely does this type of review dive deep into the contents of each document to explore the actual degree of relevance, how it fits into the overall case strategy, and whether or not there is confidential company or client information, such as intellectual property (IP), that must be withheld from the eventual production. That being said, companies are increasingly handling review demands for small cases internally to avoid paying exorbitant fees.
Why Review is Important
Back to why review gets so much attention. Review is often viewed as the culmination of e-discovery efforts and the most critical step prior to actually producing documents to the other side. It's the point at which legal teams traditionally gain a greater understanding of their case and are able to develop legal strategies based on the information that is uncovered. However, advanced analytics technologies are allowing legal teams to gain greater factual insights before the review phase, a point that was addressed in the ECA section of this guide.
Cases that involve a broad set of issues and many relevant players (custodians) will invariably result in a larger, more expensive final review project. But review is also heavily influenced by earlier e-discovery stages. Sloppy preservation practices or overly broad collections can result in more documents, creating more to review than what is actually necessarily, a problem that many companies experience.
Review is often discussed in the context of two primary e-discovery topics: costs and technology.
Review is expensive. Most estimates have review accounting for between 70% and 80% of total e-discovery costs for the average case. Indeed, large-scale review projects can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Reviewers are often paid on a per-hour basis, which contributes to why review is so expensive and hard to predict. However, many companies are pressuring law firms to adopt alternative fee arrangements, such as payment systems that are based on a method other than billable hours.
Because review is so expensive, many of the most significant advancements in e-discovery technology have been designed to address this stage of the e-discovery process. While new review platforms have greatly streamlined the traditional, linear review model, we encourage you to explore the early case assessment section of this guide to learn how many of these same technologies can be applied before review, a notion that the legal profession and e-discovery industry in general has been somewhat slow to grasp.
The E-Discovery Review Process
Review is often conducted by a group of people, commonly referred to as a review team, comprising different levels of attorneys and other legal professionals (although technology is beginning to take the place of human reviewers, discussed in more detail below). Most legal experts advocate taking a systematic approach to document review that accounts for the following considerations:
Besides assessing relevancy, a huge part of the review process involves identifying documents that contain privileged information. Privileged documents are those that fall under the protections of attorney-client privilege, a legal concept that protects certain communications between a client and his or her attorney and keeps those communications confidential, even when they contain information relevant to the legal matter. However, when privileged documents are produced, the privilege protection is deemed to be waived, and the documents are essentially fair game.
For this reason, privilege reviews are handled with the utmost care and are usually conducted by more senior attorneys, who have the most experience reviewing documents and know how to spot protected information and log it correctly for legal purposes.
E-Discovery Review Checklist
As we've established, review accounts for a majority of e-discovery costs. That expense has driven many experts and practitioners to look for ways to improve review speed and accuracy. Technology plays a big part in that discussion as described in detail below. But there are other means to improve the review process, including:
Ways to Improve the Review Process
Narrow Data Volumes Prior to Review
It may not technically be a review best practice, but controlling the amount of data that is collected is a sure-fire way to ease the burdens of document reviews. There are a number of ways to narrow the review funnel, many of which were addressed in both the collection and early case assessment sections of this guide. You can also read Exterro's white paper, "Eliminating E-Discovery Over Collection," for best practices.
The principle of proportionality dictates that the costs involved in e-discovery should be in line with the value of a case. For example, a case valued at $25,000 shouldn't impose six-figure e-discovery costs on either party. Unfortunately, litigants rarely leverage proportionality when negotiating discovery parameters and miss opportunities to lower costs. In the context of review, it's critical to look at potential data volumes and estimate review costs based on historical metrics around hourly fees and productivity rates. Having that information in hand prior to review will help expose disproportionate discovery requests and place the onus on the other side to demonstrate why the review is necessary.
Privilege reviews require a very strong attention to detail and take time to complete. They are also conducted by more experienced attorneys, meaning they are much more expensive than a typical "first pass" review. There is a seldom used federal rule that allows parties to protect against the inadvertent disclosure of privileged documents. Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) allows parties to enter into "clawback agreements," whereby each party agrees to return inadvertently produced privileged documents to the opposing side. FRE 502(d) is by no means a license to ignore privilege reviews, but it does give litigants a safety net should something slip through the cracks. Amazingly, very few attorneys even know of this rule, let alone take advantage of it, a point that was underscored in Exterro's 2015 "Federal Judges Survey on E-Discovery Best Practices and Trends."
Collaborate with Review Team
All too often, corporate legal teams hand off review projects to their outside review team and simply wait for the bill to arrive. Document review should be a collaborative effort between inside and outside counsel with frequent communication and status checks. The more collaborative the relationship where information is consistently shared back and forth, the easier it is to negotiate alternative fee arrangements that are equitable for both sides and help enormously with budgeting.
So far in this section, we've described some of the key tenets of traditional, linear review. But review is rapidly evolving. Technology advancements are moving review away from the manual document-by-document inspection described above to a more analytics based approach, where computers can basically determine whether a document is relevant or not with little human intervention.
This type of analytics-driven review is commonly referred to as predictive coding, used interchangeably with technology assisted review (TAR) and computer assisted review (CAR). There is a lot to talk about with respect to predictive coding, so much that we've actually created an entire Predictive Coding section.
For now, we'll go over some of the more basic e-discovery review software features, which include:
Once documents are uploaded into an e-discovery review software platform, users can run searches using specific keywords, combinations of words, or even concepts to help home in on relevant documents much quicker.
As described earlier, consistent tagging is critical during review. Review platforms give users the ability to apply pre-defined tags, so that all reviewers are using the same labels as they go through each document.
Depending on the type of legal or regulatory matter, and the issues involved, certain information may need to be redacted (deleted or removed) before a document is produced to the other side. Many e-discovery review software applications allow users to select words or passages in-text and have them blacked out to help expedite the redaction process. Auto –redaction features will automatically redact all instances of a word or phrase.
As discussed earlier, review projects are usually performed by teams, not single individuals. This means that review sets need to be broken out into groups, or batches, for each individual reviewer. Many review platforms have the ability to do this automatically once a review set is imported into the application.
Bates Numbering / Stamping
As cases progress, it's important that each side of the dispute has an easy way to reference specific documents in the review/production set. Many review platforms will offer a Bates numbering feature (named after the 19th century inventor Edwin G. Bates) that automatically attaches a unique identifier to each document to expedite document identification and retrieval.
Production: The E-Discovery Finish Line
The final output of the review, the set of documents deemed to be relevant to the legal matter, must be "produced" to the other side as the final piece of the e-discovery puzzle. In the paper age, production was fairly straightforward. It literally involved sending large boxes of documents to the opposing side. Today, the process of production is much more complicated. Cases involve more "documents" and those documents come in a variety of forms. Even if it was feasible to print everything out and deliver it in paper form, doing so would neglect an important component of digital evidence: the metadata that underlies what we actually "see" and describes key contextual information about each document, like when it was created or modified.
Due to the complexities of producing documents in the digital age, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) were amended in 2006 to address the topic. Several state courts have followed suit and amended their rules. According to the FRCP, litigants are required to produce electronically stored information (ESI) in the form in which it is ordinarily maintained (often referred to as "native format") on in a "reasonably usable form." Standard non-native production formats include the Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) and Portable Document Format (PDF).
Now that you've had primer on review, our next section looks specifically at predictive coding, a technology-driven process that many people see as the future of e-discovery review.