1. Data Minimization: Defensible
Culling Techniques
Kevin Nugent
Regional Sales Director
Friday, April 03, 2009

2. About Kevin
• With Encore since January 2008 and based in
Washington, DC, as Regional Sales Director, Kevin is
responsible for managing sales team and business
development activities throughout the Eastern Region.
• Kevin has 20 years of experience in the management
services & e-Discovery industries.
• He has worked with many of the leading Am Law 200 firms
& Fortune 500 companies.
• He previously worked for Xerox, Pitney Bowes, IKON Office
Solutions and Capital Legal Solutions.
• Kevin holds a B.S. in Public Administration from Eastern
Michigan University.
• He is a board member of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
2

3. About Encore
• Recognized as a Top 10 eDiscovery Service Provider in the 2007
and 2008 Socha-Gelbmann Survey.
• Web Repository hosts over 3,000 active databases exceeding 140
TB of data.
• Largest Channel Partner for Concordance, iConect and soon
Clearwell.
• In-depth experience working with law firms, corporations and
most federal government agencies.
• Technology agnostic approach to meeting our clients needs.
• Only National eDiscovery Services Provider to establish a
dedicated Subprime Services Unit addressing the specific needs of
companies and corporations impacted by the mortgage and credit
crisis.

4. Encore Discovery Solutions
National Coverage with Local Support
Washington DC
New Jersey
Chicago
Los Angeles
Newport Beach
San Francisco Bay Area
Portland
Denver
Austin
Houston
San Antonio
Phoenix:
• Company Headquarters
• NOC (National Operations Center)
• SAS-70 Certified Data Center

5. Encore Discovery Solutions
Discovery Lifecycle Solutions

6. Fact: ESI Spending
In 2009, In House Legal Counsel will spend on
average $500,000 annually on:
1. ESI Planning
2. Practice Management
3. Electronic Discovery
* Fulbright & Jaworski 2008 Litigation Trends Survey
6

7. Fact:
What Areas Concern You Most?
According to a recent survey conducted on 325
representatives, the two leading areas of
concern for in-house counsel in 2009 are:
Cost Management
Electronic Discovery
* Fulbright & Jaworski 2008 Litigation Trends Survey
7

8. 8

9. Significant Decisions For EDiscovery
Victor Stanley Inc. v. Creative Pipe Inc.
On May 29, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a
lengthy and noteworthy ruling regarding the discovery of “electronically stored
information” or “ESI.” The court held that the defendants waived the attorney-
client privilege and work-product doctrine with respect to 165 separate
documents.
The case is particularly instructive because it describes in detail the multiple
steps that a litigant should take in order to:
(1) protect against the inadvertent disclosure of privileged ESI;
(2) preserve the privileged status of ESI in the event that it is inadvertently
disclosed; and
(3) defend the methodology used to search for relevant ESI.

10. The Defensibility Decision
Defensibility
Collaboration Best Practices
10

11. The Collaborative Search Approach
• The parties, presumably as part of the
meet and confer process must “confer
with their opposing party in an effort to
identify a mutually agreeable search and
retrieval method.
This minimizes cost because if the
method is approved, there will be no
dispute resolving its sufficiency, and
doing it right the first time is always
cheaper than doing it over if ordered to
do so by the court.”
11

12. E-Discovery Best Practices
Best Practices & Data Driven Search Approach: In order to have a
•
defensible methodology in the absence of collaboration a party needs to:
– “be aware of literature describing the strengths and
weaknesses of various methodologies, such as The Sedona
Conference Best Practices ,…. and select the one that they
believe is most appropriate for its intended task.”
– And, if their selection is challenged, then they should expect to
support their position with “affidavits or other equivalent
information from persons with the requisite qualifications and
experience, based on sufficient facts or data and using reliable
principles or methodology.”
– Finally, they should do appropriate levels of data sampling and
quality assurance to test core search assumptions.
12

13. Taming The E-Discovery Beast
Enterprise EDD costs are skyrocketing and the need to rein them
in is a top concern
The $6M example: Fannie Mae Sec. Litig., 552 F.3d 814 (D.C. Cir.
2009)
● 400 search terms – resulting in hits on over 80% of the emails
● 600,000 documents reviewed with 50 contract attorneys
● And, the non-party (Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight) was
still held in contempt
13

14. Approaches to Reducing Enterprise E-
Discovery Costs
1. Control information propagation
2. Delete/destroy when possible
3. Review cheaper: utilize contract/off-shore review
attorneys
4. Review faster: utilize advanced review technologies
5. Review less: utilize defensible data reduction
technologies
6. Perform early case assessments
7. Bring more processing, analysis & review in-house
14

15. Facts: Data Minimization Strategies
Utilizing data minimization strategies and solutions lowers e-discovery
processing costs by reducing the volume of data to be examined during each
phase of the discovery process.
In large, document-intensive cases, a 40% to 80% data reduction can be
achieved, allowing counsel to receive data in a fraction of the time traditionally
required.
This process makes collected data available for pre-case assessment and
analysis virtually as soon as it has been gathered.

16. Forensic Collection & Analysis
Targeting The Custodial Population
Targeted
Custodians
Outside Vendors
& Consultants
Admin. Asst. &
Other Executives
Staff & Clerical
Personnel
16

17. Forensic Collection & Analysis
Collection Methods Cost Risk
Self collection by corporate/internal IT staff
MODERATE
Vendor collection of ESI making a copy
HIGH
Vendor collection of forensic image of all relevant
custodian units and servers
Vendor collection of ESI forensically imaging
MODERATE
targeted files
17

18. Best Practices: 5 Steps To Data Minimization
I.
• What file types are included?
Collected ESI III.
• File Type List Analysis
• What if file name is changed?
• File Signature Analysis
• Duplicates removed or
suppressed?
• Attachments versus loose files
Filter by File Type
IV. • How about forwarded emails
Filter by Date
•Black box versus Interactive
•Knowing the data
augments knowing the issues
System and Program File •Stemming
•Zip files, embedded files, etc.
Removal (De-NIST)
Smart De-duplication
Keyword Filtering
V.
II. Advanced Analytics
•Know data before processing
•Email threads
• Remove known program files
•Domain filtering
• NIST list
•Participant analysis & filtering
• Extensions for proprietary •Conversations
software •Topics

19. Traditional Approach to E-Discovery Presents
Three Significant Challenges
1. Is early case assessment really EARLY?
2. Does blind culling result in TOO MUCH DATA?
3. Are your search results DEFENSIBLE?

20. Clearwell Reduces Cost, Time and Risk of E-
Discovery
Rapid Processing
Case
• 3-5X faster processing
Documents
• Comprehensive de-duplication across all case documents
• Automated processing, eliminating manual effort
Client Machines
Search, Cull-Down & Early Case Assessment
• Superior culling and filtering (by domain, sender, recip.)
• Advanced analysis by discussion threads, topics, groups
• Defensible search: sampling, testing and iterative refinement
Email Servers
First Pass Review
• Rapid reviewing, tagging and exporting
• Productivity tracking and reporting
Files/Servers
• Pre-built integration with review platforms
Time
Archives
20

21. Enterprise Search Technology is a “Black-Box”, Inhibiting
Defensibility of E-Discovery Search
2TB
Collected
??
Client Machines
1.2TB
For Review
Email Servers
• No visibility into how or why the
results were produced
De-Duplication
• Refining searches takes days
Keyword
• Difficult to Range
Date document the search
Files Servers
refinement process
Custodian
• Keyword searches can be over or
under inclusive
Archives

22. E-Discovery Search Needs to Become More
Transparent
2TB
Collected
• Provide visibility into how
results are produced
• Reduce over and under- 200GB
inclusiveness For Review
• Speed up search testing and
refinement
• Automate documentation
22

23. Our eDiscovery Volume Reduction Calculator is available at:
www.EncoreDiscovery.com/EVRC
This tool can help you determine how data minimization can reduce your
discovery costs and shorten your electronic discovery processing time.
Thank you for joining us
Kevin P. Nugent
Regional Sales Director
202.445.9343
knugent@encorediscovery.com