In today’s Tuesday Tip, I will be addressing the second installment of our two-part series on review analytics. In case you missed it, you can find the first part on Structured Analytics here.

There’s a lot of promotion around using analytics in eDiscovery. But, what exactly do they do? Today, as part of a two-part series, I’m breaking down the basics of Structured Analytics and how, when applied correctly, they can contribute towards an effective and efficient review. In our next Tuesday Tip, I will share the basics of Conceptual Analytics and how they differ.

When undergoing a merger or acquisition (M&A), it is common for the Canadian Competition Bureau to issue a Supplementary Information Request (SIR) if it is perceived there could be a negative effect to the competitive landscape in the area of the combined businesses. For example, the Bureau concluded Metro’s $4.5 billion acquisition of the Jean Coutu Group in 2018 would likely lead to substantially higher prices or decreases in services related to medications and other pharmacy products in eight regions across Quebec. As a result, Metro agreed to sell properties or leases to another party as part of the deal.

Redaction of privileged content or personal information is commonplace before documents are produced to an external party. Manual redaction has predominated throughout my 10 years in eDiscovery, but, as of late, automatic redaction tools are gaining ground. Yet, in my experience with the current tools, automatic redaction should be relied upon in limited (or specialized) circumstances and, often, require extensive eyes-on quality control.

As the Director of Client Services at Ricoh eDiscovery, I consult with clients on the best method to manage their litigation databases. While each firm differs in how they operate (and with which tools), there is always one question that comes up: is it better to use a desktop or cloud solution?

Also known as a litigation hold, a legal hold is a preservation order that ensures records are protected and left untouched should a litigation or investigation arise — a critical step in the eDiscovery process.

By 2025, it is reasonable to assume that the digital tools emerging in legal practice will have advanced to the point there all legal services involving the standard application of legal knowledge will be delivered by technology.” — Cambridge Strategy Group

 

The scope of eDiscovery has expanded beyond its traditional focus on litigation. Defining, mapping and applying advanced eDiscovery processes requires better collaboration, creativity and flexibility. Marrying technology with advanced processes also plays a key role. 

For decades, firms have had to purchase the infrastructure and licenses for software to review their data and invested in robust software to process it. Smaller firms who were unable to purchase processing software would opt to outsource services such as the processing of electronic documents, unitizing and coding of documents. 

On-Demand eDiscovery is changing that.