Extract from article by Clinton Sanko
Controlling eDiscovery cost is obviously a valid goal; as a group, we pursue it every day. However, singularly focusing on delivery of a defensible production at the lowest possible cost is too narrow a perspective. It emphasizes compliance at the expense of value. “Compliance” in the context of eDiscovery simply means a final and defensible document production to the requesting party that satisfies the litigant’s obligations under the applicable rules. Compliance is the avoidance of adverse results.
We expect more. While compliance (at the lowest cost) is necessary, it is not a sufficient return on a client’s eDiscovery expense. Compliance is a minimum acceptable standard. In addition to compliance, we must focus and search for new methods to deliver real value to the litigation team and the end-client.
Corporate clients should not buy eDiscovery compliance at the expense of value. Compliance is not the client’s primary litigation goal. Ten years after Zubulake, eDiscovery compliance should be included in the cost of enabling the trial team to achieve better legal outcomes.