Skip to main content

I Spy the Relevant Data: Using Analytics to Accelerate eDiscovery for Second Requests

Pikachu, Wartortle, Ivysaur, Rattata—can you catch ‘em all? With Pokémon Go, the current augmented reality app craze, your goal is to search for and capture these virtual monsters that pop up in various places using your smartphone’s geolocation services. If only we could somehow use technology to identify the most critical responsive documents when responding to a Second Request in an antitrust investigation. Or can we?

As discussed in a recent article. published in Legaltech news, analytics make it possible to avoid data overload and devise a reasonable approach to handling these extensive, time-compressed eDiscovery requests.
Here are five ways that can simplify the process of handling Second Requests:


  1. Pinpoint hidden privilege documents.
    Relationship analysis tools enable counsel to identify every individual associated with a specific domain. By studying domains and sender SMTPs, these tools can discern meaning in complex e-mail communications and identify custodians who may have engaged in protected discussions. That way, counsel can avoid inadvertently producing information governed by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine.
  2. Learn about the merger before a comprehensive document review.

    Second Requests typically include numerous broad, general document requests. Without a way to narrow
    the field of search, it would be nearly impossible to comply with the government’s production timeline in a cost-effective manner—or even to know how to begin searching for relevant data. To gain a preliminary understanding of the case, search tools such as keywords, metadata filtering, concept analytics, clustering, time histograms, and technology-assisted review (TAR) can target the most responsive information in a haystack of data. With these early case assessment tools, counsel can discover relevant custodians and isolate illuminating discussions about important concepts, products, services, markets, and the
    transaction itself.

  3. Streamline the collection for review.

    Analytics can lessen the burden of compliance by reducing data volumes for review and production. E-mail thread analysis and suppression reviews message chains, sorting them chronologically and pinpointing the final conversation in each chain. This eliminates the need for reviewers to code earlier, incomplete message chains. Meanwhile, TAR can prioritize documents for review according to their likely relevance and, with the government’s permission, narrow the scope of review to the documents likely to be the most responsive.

  4. Improve coding consistency and speed.

    Near-duplicate analytics tools increase review efficiency in a different way: they identify documents with similar content based on a specified threshold of likeness. This way, reviewers need not review duplicate documents, which could breed coding inconsistency, and they can expedite their review by coding like documents in context.

  5. Identify foreign language documents.

    Analytics can flag documents that contain foreign language so counsel can determine and retain appropriate resources for translation and review. Other analytics tools can sort documents by language for human translation or facilitate machine translation.

For additional details, including strategies for using analytics tools to increase the accuracy and efficiency of your next Second Request project, please check out the article.