Essential Discovery
Essential Discovery - Attorney Careers

Cost Savings

Client- Fortune 100 Company.

Matter- Large-scale patent litigation.

Challenge- A fast-approaching production deadline and a voluminous data set.

Essential Discovery’s Solution- Essential Discovery deployed its Advance Review Team(a team of two to three highly experienced review attorneys led by a Senior Project Manager with deep subject matter expertise, technical expertise in the relevant review tool, and a thorough understanding of workflow design) to implement secondary culling procedures and design case-specific workflows that radically decreased the data set, and significantly increased review rates.

Results- All production deadlines were met, and over $260,000 in savings were generated for the Client (approximately a 50% reduction from the initial cost estimate).

Case Summary- The client in this particular matter, a Fortune 100 Company (the “Client”), was involved in the defense of a large-scale patent claim. The Client was dealing with both a fast-approaching production deadline and a voluminous data set. After the ESI vendor applied aggressive early case assessment techniques and limited the scope of the keyword searches, there were approximately 500,000 remaining documents to be reviewed. Given the highly technical nature of the case and the related documents, the estimated review costs were considerable. Further, as the review software in use could not accommodate predictive coding, and other Technology Assisted Review tools were not available, the Client determined a linear review of the remaining data set was required.

Methodology- Upon engagement, Essential Discovery quickly deployed its signature “Advance Review Team” approach to conduct a preliminary assessment of the data set. Within three days of the Advance Review Team initiation, Essential Discovery was able to identify and implement the following cost reduction processes:

  1. Reduction of Data
    • The Advance Review Team quickly identified HTML files with embedded source code. These documents could not be readily identified through traditional file-type extension extraction. This process immediately reduced the data set by over 35,000 documents (roughly seven percent (7%)).
    • The Advance Review Team also discovered that a large number of email confidentiality disclaimers that were being pulled from otherwise potentially responsive documents as standalone attachments. These disclaimers were processed and loaded in the review database, but were also still viewable in the parent email. The Advance Review Team was able to code these disclaimers as non-responsive, and apply this designation to over 20,000 documents (roughly five percent (5%) of the data set).
    • The Advance Review Team identified zip files that contained a large amount of source code. These files were attached to parent emails that had been pulled into the review set because they contained a responsive keyword search term. The Advance Review Team quickly determined these parent emails to be non-responsive; this resulted in a reduction of the data set by over 100,000 documents (roughly twenty percent (20%)).
    • The Advance Review Team recognized large caches of non-responsive XML files, identified through a file type/keyword search. These documents were immediately set aside as non-responsive, reducing the data set by another 30,000 documents (roughly six percent (6%)).
    • Through these combined actions, the Advance Review Team decreased the number of documents requiring linear review by nearly forty percent (40%). This reduced the total estimated spend on the review from $500,000 to $300,000.
  2. Increase in Review Rate and Accuracy
    • Essential Discovery’s Advance Review Team also refined the privilege list, which increased the accuracy of the potentially privileged search terms and streamlined the overall review.
      • First, this more focused and comprehensive privilege list allowed the Advanced Review Team to design a “two-tier” privilege review. Reviewers quickly skimmed through potentially privileged documents that had privilege hits, and categorized easy-to-identify, non-privileged documents. These documents were then segregated and quickly reviewed.
      • Second, by creating a detailed analysis of the privilege terms, the Advance Review Team determined some of the potentially privileged terms were over-inclusive, and the direct cause of a number of false positive privilege hits. The privilege terms were refined and then applied across the database. This significantly reduced the number of potentially privileged documents, which ultimately increased the rate of review.
    • The Advance Review Team created and refined the persistent highlighting terms and applied them across the entire review database. This allowed the line-level reviewers to easily identify responsive and/or privileged documents, further increasing review rates.
    • Finally, the Advance Review Team was able to separate documents into buckets, identifying sets of data that had a small degree of probative value, but were otherwise responsive. This bucketing process allowed for the lower-tiered probative documents to be batched out together and reviewed at an extremely aggressive pace.
    • These improved workflows allowed the review team to increase their review rates by approximately twenty percent (20%), an additional savings of approximately $60,000.