Choosing the
Right Solution for Document Review
By Robert Grande–
November 29, 2012
Review strategy
consists of the high-level decisions and activities that guide the online
document-review process. The strategy needs to include the key objectives of
the review and all considerations around time, resources, costs, and risks.
These key activities will drive all subsequent planning and management
decisions. Every case has different objectives, sources, volumes, budgets, and
time frames to consider.
Some of the key
decisions around review workflow derive from the work product needed from the
review team. Will the review team be performing a first pass review for
responsiveness followed by a review for privilege or responsiveness? Is there a
need for reviewers to redact documents? Will there be a second pass review of
responsive or privileged documents? Based on these decisions, the review
managers can configure the review tool to display appropriate tags or
categories. They can organize the documents into appropriate folders and then
communicate specific directions to the reviewers for how to conduct the review.
Every case merits a
customized review strategy centered around people (reviewers), process
(workflow), and technology (online review tool best suited for your needs) by
combining all three in a structured yet flexible matter with sound review
workflow, industry best practices, defensible methods, and technology and
communication via input from your reviewers. It’s important to hold regular
status meetings.
When choosing an
online review platform e for your document review, there are important facts to
consider. Should you go with a native format versus a TIFF/PDF format or should
you perform the review through an online system or on an in-house platform?
Other factors to consider include the functionality available within the
platform, IT issues and cost considerations as well as vendor reputation,
reliability, scalability, and security. It is always helpful to get the service
provider to be involved in the process of examination of these areas and to
provide you with tools and guidelines that will assist you in making an
effective decision.
There are a host of
emerging technologies that can help make the review process more efficient,
ranging from email threading, concept search, clustering, and predictive coding. Once you have made your choice for the
online review platform and anticipate a review project, make sure to block off
at least half a day to provide a live orientation, including an overview of the
case, software training, a group review session, and an individual session with
each reviewer on the project. Nearly every software provider will make their
staff available for your software training session, so be sure to arrange this
with them in advance.
Review Methods
The linear
method is a traditional review of documents within an
electronic discovery review platform. This means that the legal team, review team, or investigators,
will look at one document after another, ordered by date or keyword relevance.
The files are lined up in an order and the review proceeds from beginning to
end. When dealing with paper documents, this approach was necessary since
reorganizing and refiling the paper was not feasible. This approach is
sometimes used with electronic files —for example, reviewing all documents from
one custodian in their original order.
A nonlinear
review provides review sets that are populated based upon the content
of the files. This allows the reviewers to specialize on topics or prioritize
the content they review, leveraging the use of technology to increase the
efficiency, cutting down time and thereby reducing costs. Regardless of the
approach used, service providers can suggest the best practices to accomplish
the review in the most efficient manner. Whether files are organized within
each custodian or across an entire collection, dynamic methods for reviewing
can use the content of the files to categorize them. For example, the files for
a key custodian can be reviewed in chronological order to see the storyline of
that witness’ involvement in case activities. More sophisticated options use
conceptual searches to find similar documents and segregate them for review—
whether in physical folders or by tagging the documents in the review program.
Native Review with
Metadata
This refers to files that are opened for review in their original
source format such as Word, Excel, and Outlook. From a practical aspect, the
advantage to this format is that the reviewers see the file as was originally
created, hidden data as in Excel formulas or links are displayed, the content
of the files are fully available, and the cost for promoting to review can be
less.
TIFF Review with
Metadata
In this method, the files are run through a program that “prints”
them to an image file instead of printing paper. These images appear exactly
how the document would print when originally created. The advantage of this
format is a faster review without requiring any special software other than the
review program.
TIFF Review with a
Link to Native
This method provides TIFF files for review that result in speed of review
as well as a link to the native file format which is required for further
evaluation of the hidden or suppressed data. In addition you will need to
select one of the two approaches for your review: linear or nonlinear.
There are no clear-cut
rules surrounding the choice between native versus TIFF files. Rule 34b of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, “A party who produces documents for
inspection shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business
or shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the
request.”
The native versus
TIFF/PDF decision may be driven by the requirements of your production. If the
requesting party has asked you to produce in a native format, it may not be a
wise choice to convert everything to TIFF/PDF first, only to have to revert
back to the native format for production purposes. On the other hand, you might
have more control over your production if your images are in a uniform
converted format.
TIFF File Production
Conversion to TIFF/PDF for review provides these benefits:
· It gives reviewers a
standard, locked-in formatting for all documents
· Ease of bates numbering
· Ease of redaction
· Control over what
metadata and hidden information is produced to the opposing side
· Documents are in a
production-ready state so production timelines may be reduced
· TIFFs offer a universal
way of viewing the data across groups
· In most cases, reviewing
TIFFfiles are much faster than reviewing native documents. Each click opens a
tiff image or an entire native document.
· Tiffs are still the
standard for productions. The tiffs need only branding/redactions and they are
ready to be delivered.
· It is easier to
segregate privileged information
Disadvantages of TIFF
file productions:
· The tiff format can be
an issue for dynamic documents like spreadsheets with embedded formulas or Word
documents that have an array of track changes and macros
· Spoliation of documents
can occur during TIFF processing
· Metadata not retained in
TIFFs
· Cost of TIFF conversion
and load file creation
Native File Production
Some practitioners pursue discovery in native file format, the original file format in which the
electronic file was produced, such as the Word, Excel, or Outlook etc. This has
become more popular per the new federal E-Discovery Amendment which enables the
requesting party greater leeway in document requisition and associated files in
native format.
Native review provides
these benefits:
· Saves the time and
expense of converting the entire dataset to TIFF/PDF prior to review, thereby
saving the cost of imaging documents that are not going to be produced
· It allows one to see and
review data that may not appear in some types of images such as tracked
changes, formulas, and hidden rows or columns
· It ensures that
potential spoliation from inadvertently opening a native file is eliminated
· Faster processing time
· Reviewing more dynamic
documents like spreadsheets is preferable in native format
· Spoliation of data is
not an issue with native processing
Disadvantages of
native file format production
· Harder to authenticate
and requires several viewer applications, so will require additional software
to acquire and maintain
· Click-through for each
document is significantly slower than when in TIFF format
· Difficulty in bates
stamping at the page level
· Inability to easily
redact
Questions to Ask
· Who has the data?
· Where is the data
located?
· What time frame (s) are
relevant to the production and review?
· What information is
critical?
· What type of data will
be reviewed— native files or a combination of paper-based productions and
native files?
· How big is the data
population that will be hosted?
· Will the review be
linear or dynamic?
· Will the case team need
to be performing redactions, documents markups, or image highlighting?
· What review efficiencies
are built into the review platform?
· What type of security
does the data set require?
· Who will administer,
train, and support the user base?
· How many people will
need a user license to access the database and review?
· What rights will be
given to the user base?
· How will you handle
document productions?
· How long will the
database need to be online?
· What type of internet
connectivity and operating systems does your firm have available?
· What features and
functionality does the platform offer (such as redaction, notes, searchable
text, native-file viewing, tagging and production)?
Keywords: litigation, technology, e-discovery,
document review methods,online platforms, native file, TIFFs
Robert Grande is the director of business development
at codeMantra, LLC, a provider of comprehensive litigation support, document
management, software solutions, cP-DocRev discovery review platforms, founded
in 2002 and headquartered in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania.
Copyright © 2012, American Bar Association. All rights reserved.
This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in
any form or by any means or downloaded or stored in an electronic database or
retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar
Association. The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and
do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the American Bar
Association, the Section of Litigation, this committee, or the employer(s) of
the author(s).
.jpg)
.jpg)
