A Do c u la bs Wh i te Pa pe r

Managing Information for

E-discovery Readiness

© 2009 Doculabs, 200 West Monroe Street, Suite 2050, Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 433-7793 info@doculabs.com.

Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited. Doculabs is a registered trademark. All other vendor and product names are

assumed to be trade and service marks of their respective companies.

Table of Contents

Introduction 4 The Liabilities of Unmanaged Electronic Information 5

The Consequences of Not Producing ESI 7 The Costs of E-discovery 8 A Program for Discovery Readiness 10 How Ready is your Organization for Discovery? 17

Final Word 18

Introduction

Page 4

oday’s organization has many more sources of information to manage than even the organization of just 5 years ago. Consider the growing volume of digital communications (email, instant messaging, PDAs, and voicemail). In fact, an estimated 97 percent of the content within an organization is now

created electronically – and much of it will never become paper. And in the event of litigation, much of this information is potentially discoverable. Effective management of information is increasingly critical for organizations facing litigation, as they seek to manage the wide range of electronically stored information (ESI) they produce for business operations. It’s also the prerequisite for meeting other discovery challenges, including response to regulatory, audit, or Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) information requests. What are the consequences of not managing your content? What are the costs? And, most important, what’s the best strategy for ensuring discovery readiness? In this white paper, Doculabs outlines the risks and recommends the actions you should take to address discovery-related challenges.

Page 5

The Liabilities of Unmanaged Electronic Information

iscovery of electronic information, or e-discovery, is a fact of life for all organizations – not just to respond to litigation, but to satisfy the requirements of audits, regulatory inquiries, or

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests received by government agencies. Today, the vast majority of the potentially discoverable information organizations now retain is likely to be electronically stored information (ESI), much of it in the form of unstructured data. Industry statistics on the growing volumes of unstructured data are quite compelling: more than 7.5 billion Microsoft Office documents are created annually by businesses worldwide; more than 97 percent of business documents are created electronically (most of which will never become paper). According to Forrester, more than a million messages are created each day within the average company. And in many organizations, this ESI is going largely unmanaged. Previously, an organization could claim that searching its ESI to satisfy a litigation discovery request represented an undue burden. And since both sides in litigation typically perceived their discovery situation as one of “mutually assured destruction” if either party made its requests too aggressive, there was an implicit agreement not to dig too deeply. But amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) enacted at the end of 2006 now make ESI subject to discovery, so long as “the information can be obtained, translated if necessary, by the respondent into reasonably usable form.” Moreover, “the request may specify the form or forms in which the electronically stored information is to be produced.” And the rules now require a pre-discovery conference in which both sides provide a list of the relevant ESI, including certain characteristics of the information and the repositories that house it.

Within most organizations, content management, records management, and compliance efforts have understandably focused on managing high-value and high-risk information, as opposed to the bulk of their ESI – which is difficult to manage, of indeterminate value, and presents indeterminate risk to the organization. But this information still needs to be managed. Even though on a per-document basis it may represent a lower grade of value and risk, when it’s not appropriately managed, as a whole this ESI represents as much or more risk to the organization as the high-value information.

Some statistics on litigation trends

• An estimated 90 percent of U.S. companies are involved in litigation.

• The average company is juggling 37 lawsuits.

• Larger companies (revenues > $1 billion) are juggling 147 lawsuits.

• For companies with revenues greater than $100 million, electronic discovery is the greatest concern. (Source: Litigation Trends Survey, Fulbright & Jaworski)

• An estimated 35 percent of all corporate documents contain legally sensitive information. (Source: Cohasset survey, 2005)

Most of the ESI in organizations is not easy to inventory or control, and it may in fact be inventory resistant. For example: • The information may be very poorly managed. The information

may exist in multiple, distributed, unmanaged repositories; it may be on local drives, shared drives, in email messages or attachments, or in email archives; it may not be part of a highly structured process (i.e. not transaction documents or managed by a production workflow).

• The information is of indeterminate value to the organization.

The information may include documents associated with collaborative processes, with multiple early drafts and supporting documents. In the absence of policies governing the retention of such documents, a company may be retaining these types of documents in its repositories irrespective of their current informational value to the organization.

• The information is of indeterminate risk to the organization. In many instances, this ESI does not include regulated documents and typically isn’t a proactively declared record or classified via retention schedules in the enterprise records plan. In fact, for many organizations, the most significant aspect of ESI in this category is that it’s unlikely that any particular item will be requested in discovery. On the other hand, it’s highly likely that some of this ESI will be uncovered, collected, and that opposing counsel could determine it to be relevant to a discovery event. If it’s not managed reasonably well, that ESI can have a significant negative impact on the organization, either because the item is produced and is damaging, or because the item cannot be produced, but the court rules that the organization should have been able to produce it.

Organizations that do not have knowledge and controls over how this information is captured, stored, and managed find themselves drastically hindered when they’re required to produce information relevant to a legal matter or regulatory inquiry. They also face higher costs for discovery – and quite possibly greater overall liability because of the lack of effective controls. The bottom line: Electronically stored information, and how it is being stored, has now become a risk management issue.

Page 6

The Consequences of Not Producing ESI alk to the legal and compliance personnel at most organizations who must now sit down in pre-discovery conferences with opposing counsel. They will tell you that while they can produce

some of the information required to respond to an event, they’re far less confident they can produce all of the relevant information. What happens if an organization can’t produce all of the information that’s requested? Adverse rulings can be costly; legal sanctions can impact the ultimate verdict in a litigation case. In general, sanctions imposed by courts for a party’s mishandling of discovery include: • Awarding the other party’s attorneys fees and costs • Imposing an adverse inference instruction to the jury (because the

organization could not find a requested document, the court advises the jury to assume the contents of that document did not support the organization’s position)

• Directing a factual finding (because the organization could not find

a requested document, the court issues a finding that the document never existed)

• Entering a default judgment (because the organization could not

find a requested document, the court issues a ruling that the plaintiff’s allegations are true)

Considering how courts have actually ruled in cases involving ESI, the picture is no more promising: • In a 2004 case against a financial services firm, the Court of the

Southern District of New York in 2004 imposed sanctions that included monetary penalties and an adverse inference instruction to the jury. The result was a verdict for $29.3 million, including $20.2 million in punitive damages.

• In a 2005 case against a financial services firm, a Florida jury in

2005 awarded $1.45 billion in damages after the trial judge issued a default judgment against the firm as a sanction for various alleged e-discovery mishandling of e-mails.

• In a 2005 case, a Minnesota judge in 2005 imposed monetary

sanctions and granted an adverse inference instruction against a securities company after finding that the company had failed to preserve and produce potentially relevant ESI.

Finally, also consider the organizational or business impact of legal sanctions or unfavorable rulings – i.e. the loss of public and shareholder confidence. These are consequences that are particularly difficult to quantify, but they’re no less real in their ability to impact an organization’s public image – and its revenues.

Page 7

The Costs of E-discovery or organizations that don’t effectively manage their unstructured information, retrieving and producing the specific ESI that’s requested in the discovery phase of litigation is a long, arduous,

and costly process. Most large organizations use third-party legal services firms to assist in discovery efforts. Under this approach, the corporate IT department and legal staff determine the repositories or email mailboxes to be searched. The external service provider then performs an initial search of those repositories and mailboxes – a costly effort, particularly where email is concerned. Internal and external counsel then review the search results, document by document (open a document, scan through its contents, and determine its relevance). Estimates for this type of review for evidence are about four documents per minute, for an experienced paralegal or attorney – labor that does not come cheap. These line items – third-party services, internal and external counsel review – are the big-ticket items in discovery costs. They’re the reason discovery costs for the average mid-sized to large enterprise range from $125,000 to $650,000 – per lawsuit. In one typical example, a firm incurred total costs of more than $450,000 to produce documents in response to an SEC investigation.

But a recent study sponsored by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform puts e-discovery costs into even sharper perspective. The study surveyed the chief legal officers of the Fortune 1000. Among the findings: • Almost two-thirds of the survey respondents managed at least 100

civil cases in 2007, with civil litigation costs that ranged from $550,000 all the way up to $300 million.

• On average, discovery activities accounted for 45 to 50 percent of

percent of civil litigation costs in 2007. • On average, discovery of ESI accounted for 33 to 39 percent of

total discovery costs.1

Other cost components for e-discovery include the costs of search and retrieval, information preparation, and production and forensic costs, as well as hardware and systems costs. Then there are the “miscellaneous” costs: the costs of services to restore, search, and “de-dupe” (i.e. remove duplicate documents from) backup tapes. Not included, however, are the incalculable costs of disruption to normal business processes during an ongoing search, or the opportunity costs – the funds that could be put to other uses. But the cost implications become even more significant when you consider that most instances of discovery are unique and independent events – i.e. no single event has any relationship to any other events, past or future. When an organization responds to a discovery request, it must essentially start over with the discovery process. In other words, these discovery costs are all repetitive, on a per-litigation basis — and many of these underlying discovery tasks can be automated, thereby reducing overall discovery costs.

1 The State of Discovery Abuse in Civil Litigation, A Survey of Chief Legal Officers. Interim Findings – October 29, 2008. www.instituteforlegalreform.com/get_ilr_doc.php?id=1217.

What are the major cost components of e-discovery?

• Information identification and collection

• Processing, review, and analysis of the collected information

• Production and presentation

• Hardware and software costs

• Third-party counsel and discovery vendor services

• Organizational impact of unfavorable rulings

Page 8

Page 9

The result: Poorly managed ESI means higher discovery costs. Organizations that lack knowledge and controls over how their ESI is captured, stored, and managed face significant impediments when they’re required to produce information relevant to litigation or to an inquiry – in fact, Doculabs’ analysis on behalf of several clients indicates their costs can be as much as 300 percent higher. Furthermore, the inability to demonstrate such controls increases not only internal and external discovery costs, it also increases overall liability risks. And it’s a numbers game: The greater the number of such events an organization confronts, the more likely the costs of responding to one particular event will be significant.

There are advantages to having a repeatable process for discovery. First, a repeatable process increases the likelihood that, faced with litigation, an organization can calculate the level of risk and decide whether to settle or to contest the suit. If litigation proceeds, the process also helps ensure that the organization will be able to produce evidence in a timely manner, lessening the risk of sanction. Finally, managing ESI with defined and enforced records retention policies and procedures greatly reduces the potential of sanctions for destruction of evidence, or spoliation – whether willful or inadvertent.

Those “miscellaneous” costs can be significant.

E-discovery requires that you first identify the potentially discoverable information, then preserve and collect it, then review it and perform forensic analysis to assess the relevance of the information. This forensic analysis can be very costly. Consider that the earlier stages of the discovery process – identification, preservation and collection, and some preliminary review – can be performed by services firms and by automated tools, all of which narrow down what could be petabytes of potentially discoverable information, to the relevant data set. But it’s likely that data set will still be voluminous. Detailed sorting and forensic analysis is then required to determine which information is responsive and which is non-responsive, and to further sort the responsive information into privileged and non-privileged information. This analysis may well require the expensive expertise of in-house legal staff. It makes sense to use technology to manage your ESI, because it can reduce the costs and the time required for the earlier stages of the e-discovery process.

Calculate your discovery costs — and your potential savings

What kinds of hard-dollar cost reductions can you expect to see from using technology to improve the management of your ESI? To answer that question, Doculabs has developed an E-discovery Financial Impact Analysis tool – a tool that uses client- specific and industry data to calculate the savings associated with using ECM in support of the data collection, review, and production of the discovery process. For a demonstration and walk-through of the E-discovery Financial Impact Analysis tool, contact Doculabs at www.doculabs.com. Figure 1: Sample Calculation from E-discovery Assessment

he risks and potential costs of poorly managed ESI are clear. The question is: How can your organization reduce its discovery costs – and also ensure greater confidence in the information it

produces? Prepared organizations significantly improve their ability to avoid costly discovery – whether in response to litigation, or to audit, regulatory, or FOIA requests. When discovery is required, it is more efficient and less costly – and the organization can have greater confidence that it’s produced all of the information relevant to the matter in question. Suppose your organization receives an information request – whether the result of litigation, an audit, or a regulatory matter. This information request constitutes the “trigger event” for a discovery effort (Box 1 in the figure below). In response to the trigger event, the organization begins the discovery effort (Box 2 in the figure below), including collecting, imposing legal holds, processing and culling, reviewing, producing, etc. This process will be highly inefficient and costly, as well as ineffective and risky, unless the organization has taken steps to make it go smoothly. But this requires designing and implementing certain necessary conditions – at a minimum, it requires designing processes and implementing technology to help automate the discovery activities that occur after the trigger event.

But it isn’t enough just to design processes for discovery, and then execute them well during particular discovery events. The ESI relevant to discovery must be managed effectively before the trigger event takes place, through Information lifecycle management (ILM), as shown by the large, ongoing arrow at the base of the figure. ILM begins before the trigger event and before the discovery event. That is, the ESI that’s being discovered after a trigger event is managed to some degree before the trigger event – i.e. it has been de-duped, placed in accessible repositories, subjected to the corporate records retention policies, etc. Then additional processes and e-discovery technologies can be applied to the ESI that’s been determined to be potentially relevant to the particular discovery event (the small “sub-arrow” branching out of the ongoing ILM arrow in the figure). Finally, note that ILM continues past the discovery event — in fact, long after that or any other particular discovery event has been resolved, and is in place and in readiness for any future trigger event that may take place.

A Program for Discovery Readiness

Figure 2: Information Lifecycle Management and the Discovery Process

Effective, Efficient Discovery

Discovery EffortTrigger Event

Information Lifecycle Management (ILM)(necessary conditions for effective , efficient info rmation management )

E-discovery Processes(necessary conditions for effective e -discovery)

Page 10

True discovery readiness requires that you be “proactive” in two ways: with respect to the type of processes you improve, and with respect to your areas of focus: • Be proactive by addressing not only post-trigger discovery, but also

the pre-trigger lifecycle management of ESI. Merely addressing the post-trigger event discovery process itself is insufficient. You must also address how the information is proactively managed upstream — i.e. before the trigger event takes place.

• Be proactive by focusing not only on effectively performing the

relevant activities during a discovery event, but also by designing and implementing the systems, processes, and other conditions necessary for discovery to be effective. Discovery readiness requires that you proactively design and put in place the downstream conditions and activities that will make each future discovery event run smoothly, when it happens.

Putting in place these conditions and activities to efficiently handle discovery involves much more than just technology or process. True discovery readiness requires competency in a number of different areas. The figure below shows the key components of a sound Discovery Readiness Program, including development of an overall Program Strategy, along with Governance and Operations, Information Organization, Process Design and Implementation, Architecture and Technology, and Communications and Training. The subsections on the following pages discuss each of these program components in detail, providing overviews of Doculabs’ recommended approach to each component within the program.

Figure 3: A Sound Discovery Readiness Program

E-Discovery Program Categories

Overall Program Strategy Governance and Operations

Information Organization Process Design and Implementation

Architecture and Technology Communications and Training

Page 11

Page 12

Overall Program Strategy Doculabs sees many organizations attempting to address discovery with no framework, or with only a partial framework, or with a poorly designed framework. Best practice is an overall strategy for a Discovery Readiness Program that encompasses and aligns your organization’s existing visions and strategies for ECM and for records management, addressing any gaps that may exist. The strategy should also establish, at a high level, general principles for the level of resources the organization will apply to the program. The key elements of an overall program strategy are: • Defined goals, priorities, and desired outcomes • Objective assessment of the current state • Well-articulated (and documented) future requirements • A definition of the target state in terms of people, process, and

technology, over the next 3 years • A roadmap outlining the sequencing of projects required to achieve

the target state • A business case justifying the investment of time and capital It’s important that the program strategy encompass the legal, records management, and IT functions, as well as the business. Any program that ignores records management will be ineffective, because the resulting program will not effectively address proactive “upstream” management of ESI. Likewise, a program that does not include the IT function will not be able to effectively execute the electronic discovery program. Finally, the business must be involved, too, in order to incorporate the program effectively throughout the organization’s functional units.

Governance and Operations This component of the Discovery Readiness Program addresses the governance and operational structures for implementing the program. The key elements of the governance and operations component are: • Governance structure • Operational roles and responsibilities • The “rules” – policies, procedures, and guidelines – for records

management and e-discovery

Organizations should consider two aspects of roles and responsibilities as they relate to discovery: proactive responsibilities surrounding records and information management policies and practices (which we call program responsibilities), and reactive responsibilities that are initiated by a trigger event (which we call discovery event responsibilities). The figure below shows a sample of some of the key roles that should be established in a Discovery Readiness Program:

Figure 4: Key Roles within a Discovery Readiness Program

Organizations then need to design the rules – the structured, modular set of policies, procedures, and guidelines that are essential for a Discovery Readiness Program to be successful. In our experience, most organizations have outdated, incomplete, incomprehensible, or otherwise inadequate rules. The policies should fulfill the organization’s defensive requirements – yet be capable of being put into practice. The procedures must fulfill the policies if followed. The guidelines must fill in any gaps that make the policies and procedures difficult to execute. And all such rules must be easy for the organization to maintain and to modify, when necessary. Information Organization This component of the Discovery Readiness Program addresses how information is organized. It includes: • Content taxonomy or information hierarchy (including metadata

index values) • Records Retention Plan • ESI-Repository Map Doculabs finds that many organizations have the second item on the list, the Records Retention Plan, but relatively few have either a taxonomy (to organize their information) or an ESI-Repository Map (to show where their information is stored). A Records Retention Plan can be strengthened by undertaking the development of a taxonomy and by developing an ESI-Repository Map. The taxonomy facilitates ESI discovery and management; it also facilitates the development and maintenance of an effective Records Retention Plan. A well-designed taxonomy is necessary for effective electronic discovery search and discovery readiness, and can significantly reduce an organization’s requirements for electronic discovery search technology products and development.

The figure below shows a taxonomy with a three-level hierarchical structure, with processes and documents typical of the Human Resources area of an organization.

Process: Recruiting Process: Employee Management

Process: Training and Development

Specialization: Job Postings

Specialization: Time Reports

Specialization: Resumes

Specialization: Performance Reviews

Specialization: Personnel Files

Specialization: Training Schedules

Specialization: Certification Records

Area: Human Resources

Figure 5: Sample Taxonomy Structure for HR

Taxonomy: providing structure for unstructured cont ent What does it take to create an enterprise taxonomy – a classification that reflects the business-critical documents of the organization as a whole? Doculabs’ white paper, “Ten Questions on Taxonomy,” helps you understand the key concepts and the issues involved in creating and implementing an enterprise-wide classification of your organization’s information assets, and helps you plan a taxonomy initiative for your organization. Visit the Doculabs web site at www.doculabs.com.

Page 13

Page 14

The Records Retention Plan is also part of the Information Organization component of the Discovery Readiness Program. The plan addresses not only paper documents, but ESI — along with the particular metadata, confidentiality, and other issues associated with ESI. This Retention Plan is based (when possible) on the organization’s taxonomy and on the ESI-Repository Map (discussed below). The third element, the ESI-Repository Map, is critical to the development and maintenance of Information Organization. To create this map, Doculabs conducts an inventory of the instances of an organization’s ESI – not just the types that are addressed in a taxonomy or retention plan. The inventory includes descriptions of the formats and other relevant characteristics of the ESI and notes the systems in which they reside. As part of this inventory, Doculabs also evaluates the value, risk, manageability, and required management capabilities for the various types of ESI and recommends improvements (e.g. whether to keep that type of ESI in place and manage it with the in-place system, or to move it to an external system). This repository mapping is necessary to effectively fulfill the pre-trial conference requirements of the FRCP (see “The Liabilities of Unmanaged Electronic Information” in this white paper). But more important, it helps you to prioritize ESI and systems that need improvement and to develop an effective roadmap for discovery readiness. Make sure that your ESI map is informed by technical expertise and includes an evaluation of the organization’s content systems and repositories, as well as proactive recommendations to help improve your organization’s discovery readiness.

Process Design and Implementation This component addresses the overall processes used to support discovery readiness and discovery response. These include the e-discovery process itself, as well as the overall records/information lifecycle management process. Doculabs evaluates and defines processes for the discovery process, for information and records lifecycle management, and for processes involving ESI types with particular requirements (e.g. structured data, information that’s created externally, etc.). Doculabs evaluates an organization’s discovery against the industry-standard Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM). This model identifies the following stages for the discovery process: Identification, Collection, Preservation, Processing, Review, Analysis, Production, and Presentation. The Information and Records Lifecycle Management process defines the upstream and downstream ESI lifecycle stages in which the discovery process resides. It typically includes the following stages: Ingestion, Indexing (Declaration and Classification), Access and Distribution, Retention, and Disposition. Lifecycle management is necessary for effective discovery readiness, in order to control litigation risks and costs.

Discovery readiness and the EDRM While some organizations do use the EDRM as a basis for evaluating and designing their discovery processes, they fail to account for how the other Discovery Readiness Program components will impact the discovery processes. For example, they don’t incorporate an effective taxonomy and ESI-repository map, or they don’t correlate the overall electronic discovery and ECM technology strategy with the evolving process design, etc. For more information about the Electronic Discovery Reference Model, see EDRM.net.

Architecture and Technology This component of the Discovery Readiness Program addresses the overall technologies that are used or can be leveraged for discovery readiness, as well as the architecture for how they fit together. The Architecture and Technology component includes the following: • Discovery presentation services • Discovery process and collaboration services • General discovery middleware services • Specialized discovery services • Discovery repository management services We recommend that organizations develop a functional architecture for electronic discovery and discovery readiness and, where relevant, that they integrate and coordinate that architecture with the architectures for records management, email management, and for broader ECM. This helps ensure that electronic discovery and discovery readiness become entrenched in an organization’s IT strategy, enabling the discovery program to leverage the organization’s technical resources and technologies. Developing the architecture required to effectively fulfill the Discovery Readiness Program requires not just technical expertise, but also records management and ECM expertise to provide a more comprehensive strategy for ESI. The figure to the right shows the “stack” of technologies that can be used to facilitate the discovery process – whether by providing capabilities to track and manage the discovery process; to automate and facilitate the identification, preservation, collection, and processing work in e-discovery; or to automate and facilitate the review and analysis work in e-discovery.

Discovery Presentation

Ingestion Access Administration

Discovery Process and Collaboration Services

Project Management Collaboration and Workflow

General Discovery Middleware Services

Search Engine Integration

Security and Access Taxonomy and Classification

Specialized Discovery Services

Discovery Repository Management Services

Collection Repository Archive / RM Repository

Identification Preservation Collection

Analysis Production Presentation

Processing(includes deduplication and culling )

Review

Figure 6: The E-discovery Technology Stack

Page 15

Page 16

Typically, the most appropriate capabilities for discovery and for pre-trigger ESI lifecycle management come from a mix of technologies, including not just electronic discovery specialist tools, but also infrastructure and ECM products. We see many organizations that procure an electronic discovery specialist tool without analyzing their current and desired future state, and without evaluating their existing technology portfolios. In many instances, the result is a wasted opportunity: The specialist tool wouldn’t be necessary if other actions were taken (e.g. consolidating repositories and enforcing policies – things which have to be done anyway). The limited resources could have been used instead to address those electronic discovery gaps that remain.

Communications and Training This component of the Discovery Readiness Program addresses the mechanisms of educating the user community and improving compliance and adoption of the procedures and solutions that support discovery readiness. The Communications and Training component includes: • Organizational readiness evaluation and monitoring • Communication plan and program • Training plan and program Communications and training should socialize the Discovery Readiness Program and the rules, ensuring that the policies defined as part of the program continue to be effectively followed in practice. Training should differentiate between types of electronic discovery participants, including consumers, contributors, and coordinators – as well as subtypes within each of those categories.

The goal is to achieve high employee participation, along with high quality of participation. But practically speaking, it’s difficult to achieve both of these objectives from the beginning. So a best practice is to identify the high-frequency, high-risk, high-value areas within the organization, focusing communications and training on them and aiming for high participation in those areas. Then, as the program develops, participation and quality can be ramped up. A Discovery Readiness Program is most effective when these communication and training activities are strategically integrated into the Discovery Readiness Program roadmap, and when those activities are sufficiently differentiated to address the specific information needs of the various participants in the discovery process. The result is higher participation – and higher quality participation.

he figure below provides a maturity curve for discovery readiness. We use it to evaluate the discovery readiness of organizations against what we’ve found to be the necessary conditions for success. The figure indicates what Doculabs sees as the key characteristics of the leaders, the majority, and the laggards in discovery readiness. It’s a useful exercise to quickly assess your organization’s readiness against the criteria listed

below. The Discovery Readiness Program framework outlined in this white paper is designed to move organizations as far to the right as they need to go, as efficiently as possible.

How Ready is Your Organization for Discovery?

Figure 7: The Discovery Maturity Curve

Page 17

Final Word

Page 18

iscovery readiness means having a repeatable process for discovery events – whether those events are the result of litigation, audit, regulatory, or FOIA requests. Managing ESI with defined and enforced records retention policies and procedures helps ensure that your organization can produce the

relevant documents in a timely manner, lessening the risk of sanction. And in the event of litigation, a repeatable process increases the likelihood that your organization can calculate the level of risk and decide whether to settle or to contest the suit. It’s clear that developing and implementing a Discovery Readiness Program involves a considerable number of components, not to mention the buy-in of a number of key individuals, representing a wide range of functions: IT, Legal, Compliance, Risk Management, and Records Management. It also requires a long-term commitment. And while implementing the technology and program recommendations outlined in this white paper can be an expensive undertaking, the costs of failing to address discovery readiness are even higher. For most organizations, the risk of doing nothing is unacceptable. This white paper makes the case for taking a strategic approach to discovery readiness – an approach that involves people, process, and technology. Taking the strategic perspective helps you make the long-term decisions that are necessary for an initiative of this magnitude. But in the face of today’s risk management challenges, the effective management of ESI should be the centerpiece of any risk-management program – a prerequisite for discovery readiness.

Doculabs’ services in Discovery Program Impact Anal ysis If you’d like some help making the business case for discovery readiness, Doculabs can provide a “quick-hit” consulting engagement to estimate potential savings opportunities for your own organization, based on industry metrics. The engagements range from 1 to 3 weeks, beginning with a data collection effort, followed by analysis, and concluding with the creation of an executive management presentation. Deliverables include a summary report of Doculabs’ findings, along with a customized interactive “what-if” modeling tool that allows you to modify any of the variables to understand potential impacts. Our analysis allows you to quickly and succinctly communicate the order-of magnitude savings estimates, giving you what you need to take the business case for discovery readiness to senior executives. To learn more, visit www.doculabs.com.

About Doculabs

Doculabs, Inc., is a consulting firm that focuses on strategic issues associated with content management and related technologies. Founded in 1993, Doculabs recognizes that managing unstructured content is fast becoming a major business priority. Doculabs has an established track record in helping its clients develop strategies for bringing content under control. Doculabs understands the technologies and the applications at both ends of the content management spectrum, from the simple to the complex. For more than 10 years, Doculabs consultants have helped clients identify their specific content management requirements and the technology applications of greatest business benefit. Most important, our recommendations are completely objective. Because Doculabs does not sell software or integration services, you can be sure that our content management recommendations will truly meet your specific needs. Hundreds of leading organizations within the Fortune 1000, as well as federal, state, and municipal government agencies, have turned to Doculabs for assistance with their content management strategies, including ways to help them make effective use of ECM technologies as part of their discovery readiness programs. For more information about Doculabs, or for further information on the

discovery readiness consulting services presented in this document, visit the

web site at www.doculabs.com or call (312) 433-7793.

200 West Monroe Street Suite 2050 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 433-7793 www.doculabs.com E-mail Doculabs at: info@doculabs.com

Page 16