In-sourcing vs. Outsourcing eDiscovery & Litigation

SupportGood 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 Number of people in their department

2

Scope of Discussion

Collection Processing Hosting Post-production litigation support

3

PeopleTechnologyEvidence

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

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

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.

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

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

Worst Case Scenario

Surprises(!) Changing deadlines Increasing volumes Challenging data

Project Creep The ever growing case…

Wrap Up

Dispelling Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt

17

Q&A

18