Communication, knowledge and time are critical to the success of an eDiscovery case. We specialize in bridging the gap between Information Technology and Legal Departments. While applying strong project management practices we work with our client’s team. We help to identify, collect, preserve and broker requested data to all client partners and vendors. We achieve this through our FAST & SECURE © data approach to eDiscovery.
Find, Assess, Share, and Trust the data through a Specifically Engineered process for Client-focused Usability, Reliability and Enforcement.
Find the data:
- Identification (Such as data location, data management, governed, backed up and retained.)
- Preservation (Secure and maintain an in-place copy of the required/relevant data, i.e. put it on legal hold.)
- Collection (Gather and prepare the data for processing.)
Assess the data:
- Analyze data, email gap and date range analysis for relevant issues of the eDiscovery matter.
Share the data:
- Review by internal or external subject matter experts, review team, legal team. As well as data productions and exports.
Trust the data:
- Following processes that are defensible, transparent, and based on industry standard best practices.
At REW Computing, we work to Specifically Engineer or design a process for our Clients. A process that focuses on their data, business, needs and how they are going to Use it. That process, as well as the data, needs to be rooted in a Reliable, defensible, and transparent method; allowing it to be Enforced and standardized for eDiscovery matters to come.
Often law firms and corporations resort to using contract attorneys to complete the time consuming task of Document Review. Contract attorneys can look at and review these documents at a significantly lower hourly rate than associate or partners of law firms.
At NearZero Discovery we have a team of licensed contract attorneys that we call upon to conduct reviews. We offer clients extremely competitive rates for our document review through our contract attorneys. Our rates are among the lowest in the market. This provides our clients and law firms significant savings on this most expensive part of eDiscovery.
We assist with data collection using forensically sound processes based on the eDiscovery matter in question. Using various tools we can create:
We have developed a process, using the eMSAT v1, that allows us to work with clients to understand their current readiness state. Then we can work to put together a plan to improve from their current state to the “Actively Managed process, Proactive” state.
|No Process, Reactive
|Standardized Process, Not Enforced
|Standardized Process, Enforced
|Actively Managed Process, Proactive
This is accomplished through the eMSAT v1 survey and interviews with Information Technology, Information Governance and the Legal departments. (And possibly with other departments, such as Corporate Security, or Internal Audit.) In addition to a review of existing processes and documentation involved in a typical litigation or matter from start to finish. Then, we take the results, develop a gap analysis and recommendations, and outline a plan to move forward on these items in a timely manner:
- 0 to 6 Months: Quick wins and establishment of required governance bodies. Education for core team members. And, further detailed assessments and documentation exercises where identified.
- 6 to 12 Months: Acceptance of detailed current state assessment and launch of larger initiatives.
- 12 to 24 Months: First annual review with a goal of having moved along the maturity model. As well as having addressed many of the items identified in the original assessment.
Once clients review and understand their assessment results, we can partner with them to execute the plan.
Depending on your matter, it may be necessary to collect data from structured systems. For instance, from Document Management Systems (OpenText, FileNet, SharePoint, etc.) or from Relational Databases (SQL, MySQL, DB2, Oracle, etc.). And translate them based on the system structure extracting not only relevant file attachments, but also relevant metadata contained within the system tables which represent the different workflows (approvals, rejections, publications, etc.) that the file attachment took through its life cycle.
For example when you place a Word document into SharePoint using content types. You can add fields of data that you would want to have populated when uploading the file. These fields of data do not get assigned to the actual document’s metadata fields found on the file properties tab. Thus, when you extract the Word document for a collection, you are missing the additional fielded information that may relate to when this document was last reviewed. To include this additional information will require exporting it for loading into a review platform.
In another example, you may have an application with data stored in a SQL Database. The database may not have just one simple table, there may be many, with indexes, and primary keys in use, with multiple relationships between them. The generation of reports may or may not meet the needs of your matter. You may need to work to export the appropriate data elements for loading into a review platform. While taking into account all the relationships between the tables.
With most new organizations embracing Microsoft’s Exchange or Office 365 platforms for email, IBM Notes/Domino may be considered a legacy email platform. But, litigation is historical in nature. So, old email and data contained within IBM Notes applications can still be relevant to an eDiscovery matter.
REW Computing has worked with clients to identify custom IBM Notes/Domino applications that contain relevant data. Data such as approval processes, document repositories and project or team discussion databases. In order to export data from the application we can use our baseline application to customize the code.
The client may not see all content associated with a document due to limits from security related features within the Notes application. Therefore, customization of our code can help to identify these features.
- Readers Fields: Restricts who can read the document.
- Authors Fields: Restricts who can edit the document.
- Controlled Access Sections: Restricted sections within the document. So only specific people can read or edit the content.
- View Selection Formulas: When looking at a Notes view, data can be restricted to only show records meeting specific properties. Therefore, it is not safe to assume that the view chosen for an export contains all documents.
- Switch Form when opened from View: When opening a document, the form used to display the information might switch to a form based on a formula. This is typically used to restrict what users can edit.
Through this process we are able to ensure that all relevant data identified, and any supporting records, are accessible for us to export. Decisions on the exported format are also required based on the design of the database. For example, will pages be PDF’d as portrait or landscape? Or, will there be more exports in other formats, a TIFF for instance?
In the end, the export typically will provide:
- A PDF of the document, as viewed within the Lotus Notes Client
- A textual version of the document (non-rich text format)
- All attachments associated or attached to the document (contained within a sub-folder associated by the document ID/title)
- A Domino DXL file that shows all properties of the document in an XML formatted file
- A log of the exported data