←All Posts Posted on August 18, 2014 By admin
The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) version 3 has recently been released by EDRM (edrm.net). As its name implies, the EDRM is a model designed to serve as a reference. There are no legal or regulatory requirements to follow this model accept, perhaps, the truths of logic and common sense. For example, a collection of electronic evidence ought to start after potential sources of evidence have been identified. Production of evidence simply cannot happen before the evidence has been identified, preserved and collected.
In the updated EDRM model, Information Governance (IG) has taken the place of Information Management (IM). In practise this change has little affect on the eDiscovery process. Neither IM nor IG has been truly a part of the process. Removing it however feels like taking words out of context. A well-established IG does have a direct impact on the eDiscovery readiness.
The update has highlighted words Volume and Relevance to indicate their importance in the EDRM model. The volume of information depends on several factors, such as size of the organisation and their IT infrastructure, presence and enforcement of sound Information Management policies and procedures etc. In any legal proceeding, the fundamental rule of presented evidence is that it must be relevant. Relevancy of evidence can be described as a relation between an item of evidence and the case. eDiscovery is all about locating and producing relevant evidence. The convergence of Volume and Relevance triangles depicts the process pertinent to any investigation, not just eDiscovery or Anton Piller Orders.
The vast majority of organisations specialising in eDiscovery follow the EDRM model. Despite this fact, there are large differences in speed, quality, customer experience and price of eDiscovery. There are several reasons for these differences.
Knowledge and experience play a big role in an organisation’s ability to deliver reliable eDiscovery services. Knowledgeable and experienced eDiscovery specialists are able to quickly identify potential sources of evidence, prevent the destruction, or spoliation, of electronic evidence and become trusted advisers to legal council.
A proper selection of tools and methods is another factor significantly impacting speed, quality and price of eDiscovery. Following preservation, identification and data collection many organisations still use manual forensic process to extract files and documents in a format supported by their eDiscovery platforms. This process is usually slow, costly and prone to many mistakes. With manual processing for example, two computer forensic specialists may require an entire week to process 10 computers. This is before the data is ready for further processing by the eDiscovery platform.
Technical progress has made it possible for us to delegate to computers and to automate work that is repetitive or requires a high degree of accuracy. In the 19th century such automation led to the Luddite Rebellion. Nowadays, technological innovation is well received and is expected from technology organisations. It continuously produces new generations of tools that are making the eDiscovery process increasingly efficient.
Here at Elvidence we have combined knowledge, experience and NUIX eDiscovery, the world’s most advanced eDiscovery software on the market, to deliver next-generation digital investigations. With our high performance servers, Nuix advanced text processing and visual analytics technology, we find relevant evidence in hours, not days or weeks.