Meta-Four For all practical intents and purposes, there are four major types of Metadata that we're concerned with in the review, analysis & production phases of the E-Discovery lifecycle:

(1) Document Metadata
(2) Container Metadata
(3) Tagging Metadata
(4) Workflow Metadata

Document Metadata - This is the traditional stuff that you're accustomed with when trying to ascertain the Author, Create Date, Modified Date, Last Printed Date, etc. This is also referred to as embedded metadata.

Container Metadata - Vendors should be populating this metadata type with custodian & source information, as well as culling parameters if applicable. Ideally, there should be several fields allocated to cover the breadth of container information so that a linking system can reflect how specific batches of data were extracted and processed. Sidenote: The Socha-Gelbmann team have initiated an industry-wide XML initiative to standardize all the data fields in party-to-party transmittals.

Tagging Metadata - All the relevance calls, issue codes, redaction reasons, and privilege reasons comprise this category of metadata.

Workflow Metadata - This oft overlooked set of tags helps organize the workflow steps in your review platform. "First Tier Review complete", "Second Tier Review Complete", "Needs Further Discussion" and other similar tags control how work is distributed for review amongst your team members. There should also be a tag that determines the ultimate Production status of a document after it has traversed all the various tiers of control. A lot of this gets lumped in as "Issue Codes", but it can be more accurately described as "workflow metadata".

Labels: edrm, metadata, xml

  ¶ 9:18 AM 3 Comments

  Chain of Fools With so many parties involved in the E-Discovery process these days, can anyone claim to have a clear & precise picture on your project's chain-of-custody? Your case is likely to have a different vendor for Evidence Collection, Processing (Culling and Deduping), Text & TIFF, and Review & Production. If pressed, can your vendor tell you where/how a specific produced file was collected and what treatment it received along the entire chain of evidence? I think they would be hard pressed to answer this without significant research. They would need to call every single vendor that was involved in the process, and it's likely that a painstaking analysis of all the various logs still won't yield a conclusive answer as to where, when, and how the file in question was derived. The truth of the matter is that this container metadata is often dropped to the floor as it is handed off between vendors.

As the case manager, it is your job to enforce the integrity of the chain-of-custody. Ensure that all logs are transcribed accurately with source information and that all the culling parameters are captured (search expressions, date ranges, and deduplication fields). Ideally, the vendor will have the ability to store this in a field (as container metadata) in the appropriate load file. The recipient vendor should be made aware of these fields and should be instructed to store this in their subsequent output file. In the end, the review & production platform should be configured so that these fields are exposed to you and your end users.

Labels: chain of custody, metadata

  ¶ 5:35 PM 0 Comments

  I can review faster using Paper Smugly, the lead attorney on the matter walks in, adjusts the knot on a tie that costs more than my suit and proclaims, "Just print it out for me. I can review faster on Paper". Translation: you silly kids use that computer thing.

Whoa! Where do we begin to correct this attitude? Well, I say stand your ground and drop a little knowledge. It's probably true that this type of attorney can review faster on paper, but what about the net effect on the review workflow as a whole? When you're working with an automated system and reviewers' issue codes, redactions, and notes are stored in a central database, how do you reflect an attorney's handwritten hardcopy notes back into that system? Someone has to enter everything in on his behalf, right--creating twice the work? If the offending attorney entered it in himself in the first place, wouldn't that be more efficient?

Well, here are the common objections from Mr. Big:

1) "My billing rate is higher than yours, so let's do what's more convenient for me and we'll have you re-enter it at your billing rate (slightly restrained giggle). It will be a net savings for the client because I won't have to waste a lot of time with that confusing software."
2) "With all the more important things I do during the day, I review this material in bed at night. A laptop is too cumbersome, even in a California King-Size. Plus, the laptop screen gets in the way when I want to watch VH-1's 'Flava of Love' on TiVo. Flaaavah Flaaaav! Ahem, but I digress."

These are your rebuttals:

1) Yes, there's a learning curve but please try. The discovery phase should take the next 6 months and the sooner you get the hang of the software, the more savings we can realize in money and time.
2) There isn't really a good comeback for this one, but just explain that working with hardcopy paper is prone to error; illegible handwritiing, misinterpretation during the transcription process, etc. Let's work within the constraints of the system and limit our potential defects.

Write me back and let me know if this works for you guys :)

Labels: economies of scale, efficiency

  ¶ 11:39 AM 2 Comments

  I hate my Project Manager! The legal game is time & quality driven. The stakes are high and mistakes can lead to exorbitant penalties and/or sanctions. At the end of the day, there are a handful of individuals directly responsible for the expediency and quality of the productions: the project manager on the vendor side, and the review coordinator at the law firm. While the buck ultimately stops at the Partner on both sides, it is your head and mine on the chopping block. We are the ones overseeing operations on a day-to-day basis and are the ones that have been hired to prevent defects during the review and production process. Let's face the facts. Our seniors and staff associates hate us. We ask them to work after hours, weekends, & holidays. During the most intense periods we deny them any semblance of a work/life balance. You can see the inexorable stamp of disappointment on their faces, "I didn't sign up for this".

The only way I know to lessen the pain is to fill your seniors and staff in on the big picture. Let them know how their role facilitates the task at large and elicit their feedback on how things can be done better or more efficiently. The old "I did the shit work, too, and now it's your turn" pitch, just doesn't work. It will only build up resentment and, if they don't quit, only perpetuates the same type of treatment with new seniors and associates as they move up the ladder.

Buy them lunch & dinner and let them know their work is appreciated. Communicate the calibre of projects that they are working on and help them understand how getting their hands dirty gives them the first-hand knowledge necessary to move on to the next level in their career path.

Labels: career path, motivation

  ¶ 4:12 PM 0 Comments

  This is just the beginning. We are going to be buried in data. Experts estimate that more than 2.4 Billion will be spent by litigators in 2007 on electronic discovery services (reference here). While most of this business involves the indexing and presentation of email and electronic office files, we are going to be expected in the near future to work with software that handles foreign languages, audio, video, cell phone text messages, instant messages and, yes, even blog data.

What does that mean for us in the trenches? Video files for one are exponentially larger than text based documents like emails and email attachments. Processing, storage, and presentation requirements are going to need to grow accordingly. Vendors are already housing terabytes worth of data as it is. It means that as more and more information becomes discoverable--basically all Electronically Stored Information (ESI)--the more data we are expected to usher through the pipeline to bring our projects to successful completion. Be prepared and get a shovel. We are about to be buried.

Labels: esi, volume

  ¶ 7:47 PM 0 Comments