Last month I attended a roundtable discussion hosted by e.law and Nuix on Why information governance is key for eDiscovery.

The roundtable was a prelude to my week long visit to Sydney which revolved around the Chilli IQ Information Governance & eDiscovery Summit (which I provided an overview of in an earlier post). I will post further about some of the further findings of my Sydney visit in an upcoming post, including some very productive meetings with Australian eDiscovery providers. 

The roundtable featured leading members of the judiciary and industry experts from the US and Australia, including –

• Hon. Justice Margaret Beazley, President of the Court of Appeal, NSW
• Hon. Andrew J. Peck, United States Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of New York
• Jason R. Baron, Of Counsel to the Information Governance and eDiscovery Group – Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Washington D.C.
• Stephen Stewart, Chief Technology Officer – Nuix; and
• Allison Stanfield, Chief Executive Officer, e.law.

Information Governance – being proactive

The roundtable provided valuable insight into some of the industry trends and how in-house counsel can proactively manage digital information to plan for eDiscovery. One of the differentiating points made was that Information Governance was more of a proactive use of the technology, compared to the reactive use in eDiscovery.

The conversation looked at how Information Governance measures are now required to address the increasing data volumes. As Jason Baron pointed out, data volumes are doubling every 18 months. It is wildly acknowledged that the proliferation of data is an issue for all in the legal industry. The volume of information faced in even the smallest of disputes can become unmanageable, without investing time in developing a strategy, that looks at the most proportionate and cost effective approach.

Predictive Coding – should at least be considered

The use of Predictive Coding featured heavily in the discussion, with unanimous support for tools like Predictive Coding to at least be considered when deciding an appropriate discovery strategy, especially with the proliferation of electronic information.

Judge Peck reinforced that search and review methods have just simply had to evolve as it is no longer possible to manage today’s data volumes. Judge Peck’s Predictive Coding decision from the Da Silva Moore vs Publicis Groupe case, was also discussed in detail.

The roundtable was the first time I heard Jason Baron’s “Kangaroos don’t move backwards” analogy.  He pointed out that the law and the use of technology is only going in the one direction – tools like predictive coding are here to stay, especially with the cost an burden now associated with manual approaches.

e.law and Nuix have very kindly put the roundtable up on YouTube. The YouTube link is available here

Thanks again must go to e.law and Nuix for bringing together leading judicial members and eDiscovery experts to discuss issues that face us all. It was a great start to a week that had so many industry experts in Sydney at the same time.