Friday, November 10, 2017
This is Part 2 of our four-part blog series, which includes unique perspectives from four of our most senior team members, who all have Second Request experience with the stressed, insane, relentless and unforgiving world of Second Requests. Read Part 1 of the Series here.
Insane: That’s the professional and technical term for the amount of data we typically need to deal with in a Second Request.
When I get the call for a Second Request kick off, I know it’s all hands-on deck. My team of certified digital forensics examiners also knows from experience that we will be responsible for collecting more data, from more custodians under extremely tight timelines.
And, as the first line of attack, we know that our forensics team cannot be the bottleneck. We must scope the collection project, speak to the right custodians, send professionals to the right locations, secure the required data in the most efficient and defensible manner – and get everything processed, hosted and analyzed as quickly as possible so we can push the most relevant data to the waiting review team.
That’s not easy under “typical” eDiscovery circumstances. And, with Second Requests, we often have the added pressure of collecting from the most senior people in the organization, who may be based or traveling around the globe. Their computers and cell phones are not typically and conveniently located in their offices. We must move quickly and respectfully as our targets are working to comply with the collection demands of the Second Request, and we must to it without disrupting the day-to-day business.
The best-case scenario for any Second Request is having a well-defined data map already completed by the client. That way we quickly know who has what information, where it’s located and what formats we can expect. Unfortunately, data mapping isn’t always part of a company’s litigation preparedness strategy.
So, the first thing our team needs to do is partner with the client to prioritize the vast number of custodians and to figure out where the most likely responsive data is located geographically. We don’t want to travel or spend time collecting stuff that is not potentially responsive. Finding creative and defensible ways to minimize the amount of data required for collection is always part of our upfront forensics strategy.
And, we always want to minimize any potential challenges to the chain of custody. Our Second Request clients appreciate that our full-time staff of certified professionals practice via over 15 offices across the U.S. and in the U.K. That means one of us is never too far from a collection point. In-house resources versus outside contractors means fewer links in the collection chain of custody.
That’s always better for defensibility.
Once we get the data, our clients and their counsel have near real-time access and reporting to the collected material. Even in the field, for example, we have proprietary technology and workflows for hard drive imaging that let our clients literally see the relevant data as we see it. Further, our highly-trained examiners can do on-site analyses, including inclusion and exclusion filters to create custom insights during the initial collections phase. That means faster decision making for our clients.
Faster and data-driven decision making during data collection means we can get the most likely responsive information from the field onto our Intelligent Processing PlatformSM and into the Intelligent VaultSM for Early Case Assessment (ECA) and advanced analytics quickly and efficiently. That reduces the time from collection to review – and helps us get the Second Request response completed on time and on budget.
Be sure to check our Insights page for Part 3 of our Series, “Relentless”, Sarah Cole, Director, Solutions and Relativity Master
Subscribe to receive our
Experts’ Insights Blog feed.