Welcome to the initial posting of the CaseLogistix docNative Paradigm

Welcome to the initial posting of the CaseLogistix docNative Paradigm.  The purpose of this blog is to generate discussion around the concept of the new paradigm and find out what people think about this approach to handling litigation support documents. If you’ve heard any of the webinars that I’ve done over the past few months with my old friend Browning Marean of DLA Piper, you’ll know I’m talking about. But in case you haven’t been able to attend any of the webinars (which by the way are all available on the CaseLogistix website at http://www.anacomp.com/clx) here’s a recap of what we have been saying:
 

 


The traditional method for managing legal discovery review that has long been employed by law firms and corporate counsel departments involves the well known page-by-page Bates stamping of paper documents or the conversion of those documents into electronic images such as TIFFs  with numbering done during the scanning process. Electronic documents with metadata may also be converted to TIFF images and numbered but this process merely mimics the paper-based document workflow. The paper method is slow and labor-intensive and both methods are expensive when dealing with a high volume of documents.
 
CaseLogistix’s docNative Paradigm approach not only addresses reviewing single and multi-page document images, but focuses on the actual document in its original, unaltered native format (e.g. email, Web/XML, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and even voice and video) or “near-native” format (e.g. PDF and HTML). The method assigns a unique identifier to each document – as opposed to pages – regardless of length, and enables conceptual search tools to search and “read” each one, determining its value and relevancy to the case. By managing documents in their native or near-native formats, the “TIFFing” conversion process can be skipped until the document population has been reduced and only then as needed to format documents that are relevant and required for specific production or presentation sets.
 
Why is this more than just an interesting intellectual discussion? Because e-discovery is more than just discovery.  The preservation duties and records management obligations of today’s digital legal landscape begin long before discovery, or even litigation for that matter, commence.  Take a look at the EDRM diagram below. Records Management isn’t part of the discovery process: discovery records are drawn from the larger RM system as needed.

 

 

A more useful way of looking at handling documents may be to consider the entire lifecycle of litigation. When you do that you realize that you need to understand the universe of your client’s documents and that the old page centric approach of Bates Numbering all of them is simply not feasible.

 

 

 A better solution is a docucentric approach that uses a relational database which stores all the data, including metadata about a document in multiple tables.  The result is the text extraction and TIFF steps are eliminated from the front end of the processing stage and cut the cost of that process in half.  It also allows the documents to be made available in the review platform much faster – as TIFFing often accounts for as much as 90% of the time to process.  Further, it also allows early case assessment without any processing by simply dragging and dropping a native file or a PST straight into the application – something that simply cannot be achieved with the page-centric batch process.

 

CaseLogistix uses this docNative Paradigm to work with over 150 file types without requiring the creation of TIFF images on the front end of the discovery process. But even though eDiscovery is moving towards this native document-centric review approach, there remains a need to support a hybrid review of native files and legacy TIFF images incorporating Bates numbers. To achieve this, CaseLogistix works not lonely in the new docNative Paradigm but with page centric documents such as TIFF, PDF and other current non-native or near native file types.

 

The advantages to this type of system?

  • Cost Reduction
  • No need for text extraction and TIFFing
  • Cheaper native file production
  • Reduced TIFFing costs as production sets smaller
  • Eliminate risk of reassembling documents incorrectly, or with wrong   attachments
  • Works with Metadata
  • View data absent in TIFFing such as formulas in Excel files, review notes and track changes in Word files and speakers notes in PowerPoint files.
  • Reduce electronic discovery risk through better authenticity and chain of custody
  • Continuously access state-of-the-art electronic discovery services
  • Faster, more accurate data aggregation and search tools

So that’s what I think about the new paradigm. Does anyone else agree? Well at least one judge.  In the case of Goodbys Creek, LLC v. Arch Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4279693 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2008), the Court ordered the Defendant must do a second production of documents they had in initially provided in TIFF format in either native file or some other searchable format, finding that producing in TIFF did NOT meet the requirements of Rule 34 because conversion of the requested documents into TIFF files appeared to make searching the numerous documents much more difficult, a concern specifically addressed in the Committee Note to Rule 34. addresses.”

 

Now tell me what you think.

Advertisements

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: