header-logo header-logo

06 October 2017 / Julia Chain
Issue: 7764 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

Avoiding errors & pitfalls in eDiscovery

The eDiscovery process is fraught with potential hazards but some common mistakes can be avoided, says Julia Chain

  • Looks at typical mistakes during the eDiscovery process.

Electronic discovery is now the norm in increasingly complex proceedings where discoverable information can be buried in terabytes of data. The consequences of not doing eDiscovery effectively and with care can be fatal, especially in the early stages of discovery planning. While the following is by no means a totality of what could go wrong, it represents some common mistakes when addressing discovery obligations imposed by the courts.

Collection

During collection, the lack of a developed and detailed data map can leave the parties exposed to potential issues as a project moves through the ‘electronic discovery reference model’ (EDRM). In high risk, high speed matters with strict deadlines, if the location of key data is not properly identified, disruption and delays can easily occur during the course of a disclosure exercise. A robust information governance protocol, including any number of general best practices related to organising

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll