±Forensic Focus Partners

Become an advertising partner

±Your Account


Username
Password

Forgotten password/username?

Site Members:

New Today: 0 Overall: 35615
New Yesterday: 1 Visitors: 139

±Follow Forensic Focus

Forensic Focus Facebook PageForensic Focus on TwitterForensic Focus LinkedIn GroupForensic Focus YouTube Channel

RSS feeds: News Forums Articles

±Latest Articles

±Latest Webinars

I have seen the future of eDiscovery

Computer forensics discussion. Please ensure that your post is not better suited to one of the forums below (if it is, please post it there instead!)
Reply to topicReply to topic Printer Friendly Page
Forum FAQSearchView unanswered posts
Page 1, 2, 3  Next 
  

Patrick4n6
Senior Member
 

I have seen the future of eDiscovery

Post Posted: Jul 24, 10 10:05

I've recently been reviewing how various eDiscovery tools align with the EDRM, and I came to a sad realisation: no-one is providing a true end-to-end single solution. So I wrote up a post on my blog about what I think is the next big thing in ED, full end-to-end including the currently neglected Information Management part of the EDRM.

www.memphis-computer-f...discovery/

I'd appreciate feedback here or at my blog.
_________________
Tony Patrick, B. Inf Tech, CFCE
www.patrickcomputerfor...s.com/blog
www.twitter.com/Patrick4n6 
 
  

douglasbrush
Senior Member
 

Re: I have seen the future of eDiscovery

Post Posted: Jul 24, 10 17:56

Excellent point and observations. I feel like I have been banging by head on many of the same points daily.

It is often a call from legal and IT saying we need to get this ESI out of here, then over to here so we can read it, then over to here so it can be bates number and submitted - no problem right? There is no plug and play model for this right now. Even with the clients that have integrated e-discovery/compliance level enterprise tools there are still the same basic problems of defensible preservation, extraction, de-duping, culling, and searching PRIOR to e-discovery production. AD does have some does tools that can do this.

I feel as if I have to reinvent the wheel on conference calls about how to meet discovery obligations because there is a lack of an information management and business process system. E-discovery IMO is just another business and IT process system and has to lose the attitude of being something radically different. I really want to stand at the doors of Legal Tech and scream the emperor has no clothes.

Organizations have to start looking at adopting better end to end data life cycle management policies. That does not mean throwing more money at the problem with more tools. This week alone I had 2-3 conversations with CTO/CIO folks that have hundreds of thousands of dollars of ED, compliance, DLM products that are sitting on the network collecting proverbial dust. There has to be a better job of bringing in people (staff or consultants) to adequately manage the implementation, process and tools.  
 
  

JoelTharas
Senior Member
 

Re: I have seen the future of eDiscovery

Post Posted: Jul 24, 10 18:29

Very Good Read.
Thanks.

Joel  
 
  

isth
Senior Member
 

Re: I have seen the future of eDiscovery

Post Posted: Jul 24, 10 20:25

Not completely on point but I recently received a demo of Lateral Data's Viewpoint software which does address a number of the EDRM modules. Definitely does not address all of the management/collection sections but, to me, this is a pretty huge step in the right direction and will change the industry down the road (namely the need for Vendors).

www.lateraldata.com/

I am not affiliated with this company at all, I just think it's a cool product  
 
  

armresl
Senior Member
 

Re: I have seen the future of eDiscovery

Post Posted: Jul 24, 10 21:21

You don't want there to ever be one tool to do everything, you become obsolete.

It's been done with AF where a previous wire enhancement or speaker id has been reduced to a few pieces of software that process the data and you just say louder, softer, background, far, near, and presto. Now there are plenty of cases where a human is needed, but PI's just snatch up software and they now do AF work based on PAC.

We aren't talking about something which requires a technically trained person, eventually the software will get to the point where it is GUI PAC and any $10/hr person can come in and move items from here to there.

Write blocking will be built in by default, automatic bates numbering, parsing of all internet activity and registry activity in a neat HTML report which gets sent out to the appropriate people. If there is some problem with that then and only then will an expert get a call.

You are seeing that start with AD, notice they revised their press release to include all the hardworking investigators as they hung us out to dry and opted for only LE and Legal, when Legal is who hires us.
_________________
Why order a taco when you can ask it politely?

Alan B. "A man can live a good life, be honorable, give to charity, but in the end, the number of people who come to his funeral is generally dependent on the weather. " 
 
  

Patrick4n6
Senior Member
 

Re: I have seen the future of eDiscovery

Post Posted: Jul 24, 10 21:49

I absolutely have no intention of becoming obsolete, but then I think the market for an end-to-end tool will be limited because the price of the software, the hardware required to be constantly generating and storing real time indexes, the need to have a person administering the system, and so on will be unrealistic for a small to mid-size firm.

The only companies who would install such all encompassing software are high frequency litigators, which is also the general market for large scale in-house eDiscovery tools.

There's still going to be a separate market for CF guys to come in to regular companies who don't have an expectation of litigation to handle specific response to issues.

I've been contemplating for a couple of years writing an article on the cost-benefit of up-front eDiscovery systems versus response based eDiscovery where the cost and frequency of litigation is the driving factor. I'll talk to my business partner about it this week (he's an attorney) and see if he feels it's something worth doing for my market.
_________________
Tony Patrick, B. Inf Tech, CFCE
www.patrickcomputerfor...s.com/blog
www.twitter.com/Patrick4n6 
 
  

seanmcl
Senior Member
 

Re: I have seen the future of eDiscovery

Post Posted: Jul 25, 10 00:58

- Patrick4n6

I've been contemplating for a couple of years writing an article on the cost-benefit of up-front eDiscovery systems versus response based eDiscovery where the cost and frequency of litigation is the driving factor.


Another issue, rarely mentioned, is the question of bias. In-house eDiscovery may be a cost savings in some cases, but I have had a few cases where the requesting party was not satisifed with the in-house effort and demanded an external review by CF guys. In fact, wasn't there a relatively recent article about an eDiscovery solution vendors sanctioned for "bad faith" production?

I see the justification for in-house to be to advise the in-house counsel. But once the business turns to outside counsel, I've seen far more situations where outside counsel wants their own team.

There is an old rule of thumb in medicine that patients will always be less than completely truthful when discussing, sex, alcohol, drugs, eating habits and history of psychiatric problems.

Similarly, many times outside counsel recognizes that their goal is to advise their clients as best as they can, about the risks and rewards of various actions. In some of these cases, outside counsel believes that due diligence means conducting their own investigation rather that relying, 100%, on the client's.  
 

Page 1 of 3
Page 1, 2, 3  Next