Receiving counsel needed to find out which documents were most important to support their side of the dispute, but they were faced with a gargantuan task.
A major healthcare company, with operations in more than 100 countries, was involved in a contract dispute which the General Counsel of Litigation described as a “high costs/low merits” case. D4 applied advanced technologies and solutions to help this company reduce its data set by over 75% and saved them $550,000 on eDiscovery.
Our customer and its legal team felt it strategic to meet the existing deadline although the document population increased by a factor of ten. Outside counsel wanted to leverage the completed coding for the initial five custodians; the corporate customer wanted to keep to the original budget. In short: same deadline and budget for ten times the number of documents.
The proposed merger could not go forward until the second request was completed, pressuring the team to collect, review and produce the responsive materials as quickly as possible. Five million documents were collected (1.6TB of data) and the firm had 10 days until production. To make it even more complicated, this included translation and review of foreign language documents.
A leading law firm takes 18 TB through the EDRM in 7 days and realizes a 98% data reduction. The Challenge: The courts mandated the discovery and review of data contained on 78 backup tapes, containing 18 TB within four weeks.
Analysis & Written Testimony, All On a Sunday – Forensics needed to complete both the analysis and written testimony by Monday morning.
A large European corporation was involved in patent litigation. Hundreds of custodians needed to be interviewed and electronic data had to be collected pursuant to a discovery request. The custodians were located throughout the United States and Europe.
An international corporation was accused of unfair employment practices. The suit claimed that the corporation had been engaging in these activities for years. The corporation was asked to produce relevant data regarding their hiring and promotion practices over a period of 20 years. Potentially relevant data was not only stored in e-mail systems and file servers but in outdated legacy databases as well.
A small technology company accused the defendant of not paying invoices that had been submitted over a 12 month period. The defendant claimed that they never received any invoices until the suit was filed. The defendant also claimed that due to the invoices being submitted years after the work had been completed there was no way to verify the work that had been done or match that work to the invoices.
An individual was accused by his former employer of possessing and using customer lists and other proprietary and confidential information to steal business shortly after being hired by a competing organization. The defendant did return some data but it was after he had been employed at the new company for over a month. It also believed that the defendant still maintained some confidential and proprietary information.