KEY Discovery to Offer Technology Services Through a Partnership with Datamine Discovery

Posted on by
Reply

Boston’s KEY Discovery has been known as one of New England’s leading litigation support technologies and recently they announced they will be offering additional technology services through their affiliation with Datamine Discovery.  Datamine Discovery is a high-end eDiscovery provider who specializes in offering forensic data collection, data processing, hosted review, and document production utilizing the Reveal Data platform.
Datamine Discovery was co-founded by Scott King at the beginning of 2020 and is solely focused on providing attorneys with eDiscovery solutions.  You may visit the company by going to DatamineDiscovery.com

What is Litigation Support?

Posted on by
Reply

How to benefit from document support for legal cases

Preparing for trial is no easy task, and it’s quite common for even the most experienced litigation attorneys to get buried in paperwork relatively early in the process. This is where litigation support comes in to help ease the burden and ensure a streamlined approach to preparing for trial. In broad strokes, litigation support refers to the aid provided by an organization when it comes to collecting, processing, reviewing, and preparing documents for trial via computer systems.

The Basics of Litigation Support

It has been said that litigation support is the crossroads between technology and project management. Even though each case is unique, general standards applied to this collection and review process help to maintain the integrity of materials and to present them in an organized fashion. When done properly, litigation support directly contributes to an effective presentation for the client in court.

Litigation Support in a Modern Caseload

E-discovery is quickly becoming the common practice for courtrooms all over the United States, and the industry has evolved quickly to provide litigations with access to these services easily and quickly. Professionalism and experience in this arena are essential, which is why it’s so important for legal teams looking for the proper level of support to investigate options thoughtfully.

Litigation support involves four common stages to help today’s busy litigators maximize their resources and create compelling presentations of data:

  • Collection, which might be conducted on site or remotely. With the use of industry best practices, this process is forensically sound.
  • Processing, which takes the responsibility of massive data collection out of the hands of a litigator and allows for an experienced team to filter out materials and compile metadata.
  • Review, ensuring that all the collected data is accessible from anywhere online and easily searchable in an organized database.
  • Production, which could lead to prints, images, or more.

Choosing Litigation Support

Making a mistake in choosing a vendor for litigation support can cause serious issues, delays, and excessive costs. With your professional reputation on the line, litigation support is far too important a task to outsource to just anyone. Trust a provider focused on meeting your individual needs throughout the process, from start to finish. WarRoom Document Solutions is committed to providing top-notch customer service and fast turnaround time.

WarRoom Document Solutions is the nation’s leading litigation support solution. With two strategically-positioned office locations, they serve clients throughout the U.S. With more than 21 years of experience, they provide litigation support you can count on. Contact WarRoom at 1-855-WAROOM (927-7666), or online.

Government E-Discovery: Improving But Still Problematic

Posted on by
Reply

The recent economic recession, which began to impact the U.S.in late 2008 and early 2009, created more than enough economic shortfalls to go around. From local, all the way up to  Federal government, budgets were severely impacted due to lessened tax revenue. Even if stimulus money was spent on government agencies, it was largely spent on preserving basic services, maintaining jobs, and generally keeping governments operational. Necessary internal infrastructure projects, often at the Federal agency level, were put off for another day. That said, Americans and the Federal government did not suddenly switch back to using typewriters in 2009. Rather, and perhaps surprisingly, the use of new and expensive technology in workplace settings has continued to increase over the past decade.

A recent survey of Federal agencies indicates that these agencies have not completely kept pace with technological advancement and are struggling to appropriately respond to discovery requests for electronically stored information (ESI). While most Federal agency respondents believe that their staffs are more confident in handling e-discovery requests, most also agree that the quality of the ESI responses may lack legally-sufficient accuracy, accessibility, completeness, and trustworthiness. The problems with Federal agency e-discovery responses may intensify, or may improve, but one thing is clear: the number of e-discovery requests and subsequent ESI responses is growing.

It’s not hard to see why e-discovery requests from Federal agencies are growing. High-profile Federal legislation like the Affordable Care Act (ACA) features ESI regulation enforced through Federal agencies. Indeed, the ACA mandates the use, optimization, and platform-integration of electronic medical records (EMRs) – a form of ESI. Today, EMRs are critical in billing, reimbursement, and even fraud-related legal matters. As another example, almost all securities transactions and related filings are done online. In fact, most Federal agency filings, exemption requests, agency communications, or rule-making comments are accomplished through online submission and are then ESI.

Besides regulations related to ESI, the use of mobile technology has risen among Federal agency employees. Many more employees are now using tablets, smart phones, and cloud-based computing. Ideally, the ESI on all of these devices is synced and part of one, accessible network. But as the recent controversy involving then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email account and private email server demonstrates, it is sometimes even difficult for heads of Federal agencies to understand the complications of scattering ESI over multiple systems and servers. Programmers are building more sophisticated programs and Engineers are putting computing power in our hands and in just about every location imaginable. Therefore, Federal agency e-discovery teams are struggling to hit a target that continually moves forward.

As one e-discovery expert stated “the rules of litigation haven’t changed, the technology has. We just have to amend our practices to include it.” Financial and budget constraints have a real impact. It takes time, technology, and money to update e-discovery software, hardware, and processes. But as technology grows, agency resources are not growing at the same pace. The reality of technological advances, budget restraints, and Federal agency efforts may prove little comfort to a litigant relying on ESI from the Federal government. Cases are built on evidence, and the lack of legally sufficient evidence – or the false assumption that you have all of the available evidence – can ruin your case.

The e-discovery experts at WarRoom Document Solutions Document Solutions can help you store, protect, send, and analyze ESI. When you hire us to handle ESI, from a Federal agency or elsewhere, you can feel confident that you are getting expert-level service and advice regarding the e-discovery process and the quality of ESI received. Federal agencies are in a unique legal position in that they are protected through many immunity laws. Do not rely on ESI obtained from a Federal agency without at least having it reviewed by the experts at WarRoom Document Solutions. Better yet, save time and money when you let our e-discovery specialists work with you to obtain and analyze critical ESI from Federal agencies.

WarRoom Document Solutions is the nation’s leading e-discovery solution. With two strategically-positioned office locations, we serve clients in the Northeast and throughout the U.S. With more than 21 years of experience, WarRoom Document Solutions provides document solutions you can count on. Contact us at 1-855-WAROOM (927-7666), or contact us online for more information on how we can help your business or law firm.

Managing the Costs of Producing Data to Provide to Opposing Counsel

Posted on by
Reply

Serving legal counsel and organizations throughout the United States

Managing the costs of legal action of any size or scope is important to reducing the overall impact the proceedings have on your organization. While it may seem like a relatively minor expense in the overall scheme of things, the processes of data gathering and production offer viable opportunities for cost reduction.

Save costs on the production of large amounts of data

Data relating to complex legal cases is likely to range in size and format. When curating or producing these different data formats, the overall cost of the legal action can see significant increase. If handled correctly, however, the production of data to provide to opposing counsel can be kept to a minimum.

To effectively manage the costs of data production, consider these useful strategies:

  • Carefully complete the discovery process: The effective production of data to provide to opposing counsel begins with the discovery process. By ensuring that all pertinent data is gathered prior to production, you may be able to avoid multiple production costs.
  • Ensure accurate review of data: An accurate and comprehensive review of all data allows for effective organization of information. A thorough review also provides the opportunity to purge non-case essential data, which reduces the overall costs of production.
  • Consider producing a summary: If your data set is large or of diverse formats, it may be helpful to produce a thorough summary of the information. While it may still be necessary to produce the data for opposing counsel, a summary offers the opportunity to avoid the physical recreation of ALL data.
  • Select a review tool that allows you to conduct your own productions: Tools such as InControl allow the end user to identify documents to be produced and produce these documents from within the review tool. Many vendors offer this service at an additional cost, however this expense can all but be eliminated with the proper tool.  With InControl, users can select documents to be produced, bates number, select the agreed upon output format and send the production to opposing counsel.  The transfer of data is most often accomplished using a hard drive or optical disc, such as a CD or DVD. Depending upon the size and nature of your data set, alternate transfer methods may prove more cost-efficient.

By exploring these strategies, you may reduce costs while ensuring the effective gathering and review of key data.

Trust WarRoom Document Solutions to help you reduce production costs

WarRoom Document Solutions offers the specialized and flexible data gathering, review and production services you need to manage the costs of producing data sets for opposing counsel. Our proprietary software application, combined with our knowledge of effective forensic collection processes, allows us to manage the discovery process from start to finish, allowing your team to focus on planning your legal strategies.

To learn more about our defensible electronic technology and how they can help you mitigate data production costs, call 1-855-WAR-ROOM or contact us online today.

What is E-Discovery?

Posted on by
Reply

How to benefit from document support for legal cases

Preparing for trial is no easy task, and it’s quite common for even the most experienced litigation attorneys to get buried in paperwork relatively early in the process. This is where litigation support comes in to help ease the burden and ensure a streamlined approach to preparing for trial. In broad strokes, litigation support refers to the aid provided by an organization when it comes to collecting, processing, reviewing, and preparing documents for trial via computer systems.

The Basics of Litigation Support

It has been said that litigation support is the crossroads between technology and project management. Even though each case is unique, general standards applied to this collection and review process help to maintain the integrity of materials and to present them in an organized fashion. When done properly, litigation support directly contributes to an effective presentation for the client in court.

Litigation Support in a Modern Caseload

E-discovery is quickly becoming the common practice for courtrooms all over the United States, and the industry has evolved quickly to provide litigations with access to these services easily and quickly. Professionalism and experience in this arena are essential, which is why it’s so important for legal teams looking for the proper level of support to investigate options thoughtfully.

Litigation support involves four common stages to help today’s busy litigators maximize their resources and create compelling presentations of data:

  • Collection, which might be conducted on site or remotely. With the use of industry best practices, this process is forensically sound.
  • Processing, which takes the responsibility of massive data collection out of the hands of a litigator and allows for an experienced team to filter out materials and compile metadata.
  • Review, ensuring that all the collected data is accessible from anywhere online and easily searchable in an organized database.
  • Production, which could lead to prints, images, or more.

Choosing Litigation Support

Making a mistake in choosing a vendor for litigation support can cause serious issues, delays, and excessive costs. With your professional reputation on the line, litigation support is far too important a task to outsource to just anyone. Trust a provider focused on meeting your individual needs throughout the process, from start to finish. WarRoom Document Solutions is committed to providing top-notch customer service and fast turnaround time.

WarRoom Document Solutions is the nation’s leading litigation support solution. With two strategically-positioned office locations, they serve clients throughout the U.S. With more than 21 years of experience, they provide litigation support you can count on. Contact WarRoom at 1-855-WAROOM (927-7666), or online.

You’re invited to the 2014 Dress for Success Luncheon – January 31

Posted on by
Reply

Clothes may not make the woman, but the right outfit is essential to any job search. When a woman looks the part, she is more likely to get the job. Dress for Success connects disadvantaged women with the clothes and networking skills they need to find employment.

WarRoom Document Solutions is a long time supporter of Dress for Success. WarRoom President Jeannine Bell is serving on the Host Committee for the 2014 Dress for Success Luncheon and hopes that you will consider supporting the January 31st event, either by purchasing a ticket or by sponsoring a table.
dfs
luncheon
info

A Tale of Three Bindings

Posted on by
Reply

3bindings

Whether you have an appellate brief, an appendix, or a corporate handbook, your print document is too big for staples and needs to be bound. Different courts have different requirements, but a three ring binder isn’t always the best binding solution.

Not all bindings are created equal. It can be difficult to know what you need unless you see it. We’re hoping the following photos will help you identify what you’re looking for. 1

GBC

GBCtophalfbest (1)
This type of binding is sometimes referred to as comb or spiral binding. GBC binds up to two inches of document. It lies flat when open, so GBC is perfect for documents that will be read frequently. Available in black and blue, in a variety of sizes

Velo

veloappellatetophalf
Velo is durable and required by some courts. It can accommodate larger documents (up to three inches thick), but it doesn’t allow the document to lie flat when open. Available in black and blue

Tape

tapetophalf
Tape binding is good for filings, marketing booklets, and corporate publications. It is a clean and professional look, often requested by clients. Available in black, up to 1.5 inches

A Rainbow of Cover Choices

For GBC and velo binds, our most popular option is clear covers with black vinyl backs. We also stock red, yellow, green, blue, gray and white covers on 65 lb. cardstock. Additional colors are available upon request.

If you’re still not sure what you need, feel free to call us at 1-855-WarRoom. We can help you determine which binding would best meet your document needs.

1. Pictures feature sample covers provided by Mass.gov.

New Massachusetts eDiscovery rules effective January 1, 2014

Posted on by
Reply

As of January 1st, 2014, new rules went into effect that change Massachusetts eDiscovery procedure. Lawyers who practice in federal courts won’t see much of a difference, but attorneys who practice primarily in state courts may be in for a shock.

According to Attorney Jonathan Sablone, a Nixon Peabody partner who spoke on the amendments at the 2013 Boston eDiscovery Summit, only vague eDiscovery guidelines for Massachusetts state courts existed prior to the new rules. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court approved the uniform set of rules, which are based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and will apply to all seven MA court systems.

Out-of-Control eDiscovery

The Reporter’s Notes to the 2014 Amendments explain: “The driving force behind the decision to consider rules for electronic discovery in Massachusetts is the staggering growth of information in electronic form today.”

At the 2013 Boston eDiscovery Summit, Attorney Francis Fox of Bingham McCutchen discussed why the court needed to codify Massachusetts eDiscovery rules. “The perception of discovery shifted around 1970 from the fair-haired child of Lady Justice to a ravenous wolf…Civil litigation may go the way of the horse and buggy if something isn’t done.”

pre1970post1970

Fox said if the system is to survive, there must be controls put on it. The new rules put a pre-trial emphasis on discovery intended to turn the current atmosphere of combat into one of cooperation.

Judge Frederic Rutberg of the Massachusetts District Court said the new rules are intended to make eDiscovery more manageable, while at the same time preserving the culture of Massachusetts courts.

Early ESI conferences

Massachusetts Rule 26(f) process is driven by attorneys, and assumes cooperation. The Reporter’s Notes state: “Unlike the Federal Rule 26(f), the Massachusetts version…does not require a conference between parties as a matter of course.” However, at any time during the first 90 days after the responsive pleading is filed, either party may request a meeting to develop a discovery plan for ESI (electronically stored information), no later than 30 days after the request is served. The request will be served on all parties, but not with the court. Within 14 days, the parties must file the plan and/or any disagreements with the court.

Topics to be discussed at the 26(f) “meet and confer” session include:

  • preservation
  • production format
  • metadata
  • production timing
  • privilege and confidentiality
  • cost allocation

If the parties cannot come to an agreement on their eDiscovery plan, the parties will meet before the judge in a Rule 16 conference. The court has the power to decide timing and extent of discovery, preservation and discovery of ESI, procedures for asserting claims of privilege, and cost allocation. Judge John Carroll, Dean of Cumberland School of Law, remarked that Massachusetts is ahead of the FRCP on Rule 16.

Inaccessibility

Inaccessible ESI is defined by the new Massachusetts Civil Rules of Procedure as “electronically stored information from sources the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.” If a party claims the ESI is inaccessible, that same party bears the burden of proof. The court may order inaccessible ESI, but also has the power to shift costs to the requesting party.

ESI Format

If the requesting party doesn’t choose the production format, then the responding party may choose. If the first party does request a certain form of ESI, the second party may object, but then the second party must specify a format.

“Know what format you want before going in front of a judge,” Judge Rutberg advised. He said most judges of his vintage are not very knowledgeable about ESI formats. If you’re of the same vintage or simply wondering what format you should choose, read this article on native vs. TIFF.

Be Prepared

Familiarize yourself with the new Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. Check out Jonathan Sablone’s helpful book Massachusetts e-Discovery and Evidence 2013 Edition. And remember, WarRoom Document Solutions is here to help with all of your litigation support and eDiscovery needs.

WarRoom is Hiring a Sales Assistant

Posted on by
Reply

WarRoom Document Solutions is looking for an assistant to support our sales team. The WarRoom sales assistant will make cold calls, participate in WarRoom marketing efforts, and attend meetings with clients, primarily at law firms and corporate offices.

The assistant will also back up our primary customer service representative, picking up and delivering boxes of documents throughout downtown Boston as needed.

This position is a good mix of office and driving. If you can’t stand the thought of sitting behind a desk all day, but want to develop your sales skills, this job is for you. Recent graduates are encouraged to apply.

Requirements

  • Driver’s license and good driving record required.
  • Bachelor’s degree preferred.
  • Microsoft Office required, Saleforce and Sage Peachtree a plus.
  • Able to provide exceptional customer service to all levels within a law firm and corporate setting.
  • Good organizational skills and attention-to-detail required.
  • Capable of working in a fast-paced and deadline-driven environment.
  • Excellent verbal/written communication skills
  • Achievement-oriented team player, not afraid of wearing multiple hats
  • Honesty, confidentiality and a strong code of ethics
  • Able to lift up to 50 lbs

    • Shift: 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Must be able to work flexible hours when required. Previous litigation support or eDiscovery experience a plus.

    Compensation

    Hourly pay + benefits

    Warroom DSI is an Equal Opportunity Employer. We do not discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, gender, national origin, age, disability, marital or veteran status, or any other legally protected status.

    Apply today!


    Send your resume to employment@warroomdoc.com

To TIFF or Not to TIFF

Posted on by
Reply

That is the question

Fun in the eDiscovery sun

If ESI could choose its own format, it would be native.

Maybe you’ve always TIFFed your legal eDiscovery productions and you don’t want to use another system. Maybe you don’t understand the difference between TIFF and native file formats, and you really don’t care because you’re not an IT specialist.

Here’s why file format matters:

• Use of native format cuts eDiscovery costs, which usually comprise the largest percentage of litigation expenses.
• Native files are automatically searchable, vs. TIFF, which are not.
• Native files include data not available on TIFF.

Takeaway:

Native saves you time and money and provides you with potentially case-changing electronic information.

Fabulous File Formats

OK, fight the temptation to let your eyes glaze over. Understanding the difference between documents formats will be important during 26(f) negotiations and requests for production.

A TIFF is a picture of your document. It is the oldest format for a scanned image, born in the 80s, like some of your staff. Since it is a picture, it cannot be searched unless text is extracted by Optical Character Recognition(OCR) and included as a separate file, called a load file.

Some metadata, such as the file creation date and time, can be preserved as TIFF tags in an additional load file, and searches must be run against all three files to find keyword matches and to get a picture of what data used to exist. Sounds cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive? It is, but it’s probably the best game in town for paper documents. It is not optimal for Electronically Stored Information, which is multidimensional in nature.

A PDF is similar to a TIFF in that it is also a picture of your scanned document. PDFs are popular because they are viewable on almost any platform via a free reader, Adobe Acrobat. The metadata that can be embedded in a PDF is much more sophisticated than the metadata in TIFF extension tags, but still not as extensive as native files.

Native is a file format that preserves the file’s original format and includes metadata such as commentary, formulas, author, creation date, and creation time. It is automatically searchable. If ESI could choose its own format, it would be native.

Why Metadata Matters

Let’s take, for example, the subject of formulas. Why does it matter if you can’t see a formula? With a TIFFed Excel file, all you get is a column of numbers:Picture of an Excel column

With a native file, it is possible to extract the formula to tell how those numbers were obtained.

So it would be immediately obvious that instead of:

=C1/AVERAGE(A1-A6)

The formula was in fact:

=C1/SUM(A1-A3)

Formulas offer important evidence and sometimes can be your case’s smoking gun. Don’t lose them to TIFFing.

OK, so you don’t want to miss outcome-changing information, and you want to save money, but you haven’t the faintest idea of how to draft a Request for Discovery for native files. Craig Ball provides an excellent example on his Ball In Your Court blog.

So why wouldn’t you go Native?

Since TIFF productions are static images, they can be a good choice if you don’t want to give the other side the advantages of natives. You can save the most money by doing a native discovery, reviewing for responsive docs in native, and then TIFFing only responsive docs and producing those.

Take a byte out of eDiscovery costs by avoiding unnecessary TIFFs. Call WarRoom Document Solutions to discover how to control your eDiscovery today.