It's important for your firm to have an e-mail policy, and to follow it; many times, the fact that there is a policy and it's being followed, is a defense to claims that you're inappropriate with e-mail.
"Inappropriate" often means that you have a policy, follow it, and the opposition doesn't like that. Where I work, e-mail disappears in 90 days as a matter of course, decided in IT. Because the decision isn't based on any litigation, it's unlikely that the company could get into hot water for destruction; in this case, it isn't spoliation.
Another policy is to minimize putting things on e-mail unnecessarily; so often people e-mail, twitter and text, but could easily walk down the hall, or make a 30-second phone call. Memorializing the information electronically just makes more work in the long run as it creates a document.
Of all the document review projects on which I've worked, the first one had the most ridiculous, innocuous, non-responsive e-mails of the bunch. It was easy to move quickly through some batches as they were requests to assistants to subscribe to a magazine, order a new cellphone holster, order a new car charger, order a cd, and many other examples of information that was not truly personal but didn't have a purpose related to the lawsuit.
Showing posts with label document review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label document review. Show all posts
Monday, August 3, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Treating Each Employee like a Records Manager
Recently, Gabe talked about treating each employee like a records manager. That's what I'm working on. Policies are being created, records retention schedules updated and hopefully position descriptions and annual reviews will have a percentage of time to be devoted to records management. My workplace, like many other offices, doesn't have support staff to deal with records management, yet people don't understand its relation to themselves.
People keep too many documents; case in point, a review I was on in which, after the review a bunch of boxes were located somewhere crazy, like the CEO's basement or storage area at work. Because the documents weren't scanned in as they hadn't been captured in any of the previous go-rounds, an agency was contacted from which 50 or so attorneys were procured for supposedly a couple of weeks. Nor were we told it was paper. Imagine the frustration and annoyance we felt upon learning a) it was paper and b) the review would last a day or so, maybe. Depending on whether you obtained one of the last boxes.
That, and a review for which some of the employees whose documents had been collected, literally had everything since they had started. 16 or so years previously. Now, dealing with IP may be different than some other areas, as after 16 years a patent would still be enforced; however, many companies have an electronic records person who strictly deals with ensuring that copies of all relevant documents for a given project are in the project file. Once the project is over and docs have been turned in, the theory is that this is the official record of the project and anyone who worked on any aspect of it is able to delete their copies of the final and any previous renditions of the project.
As a practical matter, this would streamline both the production time for discovery as there would be fewer documents to collect and would have a huge impact on the actual review as some reviews eliminate duplicates but so often a duplicate isn't an exact duplicate so would still be there. But never just one copy because there seems to be a minimum requirement to keep five copies of any electronic document. Mind you, that's each person's quota, so if 10 people touch the document, there are a minimum of 50 copies of it saved electronically. If people would buy into the fact that records are kept centrally and there's no need to keep that paper copy or the series of renditions leading up to the final one, it would help the bottom line greatly.
People being how they are, it's likely that multiple copies of documents won't go away so there will be tons of work for document review attorneys once the lawsuits get rolling. Every big player in the financial sector is up for at least one lawsuit, right?
People keep too many documents; case in point, a review I was on in which, after the review a bunch of boxes were located somewhere crazy, like the CEO's basement or storage area at work. Because the documents weren't scanned in as they hadn't been captured in any of the previous go-rounds, an agency was contacted from which 50 or so attorneys were procured for supposedly a couple of weeks. Nor were we told it was paper. Imagine the frustration and annoyance we felt upon learning a) it was paper and b) the review would last a day or so, maybe. Depending on whether you obtained one of the last boxes.
That, and a review for which some of the employees whose documents had been collected, literally had everything since they had started. 16 or so years previously. Now, dealing with IP may be different than some other areas, as after 16 years a patent would still be enforced; however, many companies have an electronic records person who strictly deals with ensuring that copies of all relevant documents for a given project are in the project file. Once the project is over and docs have been turned in, the theory is that this is the official record of the project and anyone who worked on any aspect of it is able to delete their copies of the final and any previous renditions of the project.
As a practical matter, this would streamline both the production time for discovery as there would be fewer documents to collect and would have a huge impact on the actual review as some reviews eliminate duplicates but so often a duplicate isn't an exact duplicate so would still be there. But never just one copy because there seems to be a minimum requirement to keep five copies of any electronic document. Mind you, that's each person's quota, so if 10 people touch the document, there are a minimum of 50 copies of it saved electronically. If people would buy into the fact that records are kept centrally and there's no need to keep that paper copy or the series of renditions leading up to the final one, it would help the bottom line greatly.
People being how they are, it's likely that multiple copies of documents won't go away so there will be tons of work for document review attorneys once the lawsuits get rolling. Every big player in the financial sector is up for at least one lawsuit, right?
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Suze Orman's New Book-Free Download Temporarily
Suze Orman has been on seemingly every show on every channel lately; she has a new book which can be downloaded on Oprah's webpage. I haven't looked at it and while I don't know that I'd go out and buy one of her books, it's definitely worth downloading.
Finances are always tricky, especially for those of us with lots of debt, in industries in which it's currently difficult to break into. Several months ago, I accidentally invited everyone my computer knew to join me on Linkedin. Just the other day I had a response from a woman with whom I worked last year; when I was cut from the project, she and another attorney were kept on. They were just let go at the end of the year.
Locally, I'm aware of one project and have seen ads posted; you know the ones, they're from some company that it's one of the usual suspects and you wonder how they can possibly have a project in your small market. I did see another ad which defied reality; they want document review attorneys in a small town a couple of hours from here. Because the town has a food manufacturing plant and is selling a lot of a product with which we're all familiar, it's possible that instead of hiring a firm a couple hours away, where there's an unlimited supply of out-of-work attorneys, they're trying to do it in-house.
While I didn't read the ad, in order to get people from out of town, they'd have to be paying for housing and expenses and would expect a similar rate to doc reviews here; since it's a small town, their market rates are likely lower and they may try to pay less than the going rate. If people are desperate enough, they'll get it.
A large local firm has done work for another state and because of the size of population and fiscal situation in that state, they were forced to import attorneys and put them up in hotels; it was a poor state and the attorneys were two to a room at the hotel.
I'm paying more attention to how I spend money and have still been good about bringing lunch to work; I fell off the wagon on Monday and bought my lunch, but brought it the rest of the week. I talk myself out of things I want because I realize I don't need most of them.
I keep thinking about getting a different phone. And periodically getting obsessive about it. I have a backup phone for when this one dies, and it's three years old, so I have no idea how long it's going to last. One of my colleagues is offering me an old phone; her husband is the guy who gets a new phone, then takes her old phone when she gets a new one, so it sounds like they always have phones lying around the house. I may take her up on it so I get what I want and don't spend money.
Finances are always tricky, especially for those of us with lots of debt, in industries in which it's currently difficult to break into. Several months ago, I accidentally invited everyone my computer knew to join me on Linkedin. Just the other day I had a response from a woman with whom I worked last year; when I was cut from the project, she and another attorney were kept on. They were just let go at the end of the year.
Locally, I'm aware of one project and have seen ads posted; you know the ones, they're from some company that it's one of the usual suspects and you wonder how they can possibly have a project in your small market. I did see another ad which defied reality; they want document review attorneys in a small town a couple of hours from here. Because the town has a food manufacturing plant and is selling a lot of a product with which we're all familiar, it's possible that instead of hiring a firm a couple hours away, where there's an unlimited supply of out-of-work attorneys, they're trying to do it in-house.
While I didn't read the ad, in order to get people from out of town, they'd have to be paying for housing and expenses and would expect a similar rate to doc reviews here; since it's a small town, their market rates are likely lower and they may try to pay less than the going rate. If people are desperate enough, they'll get it.
A large local firm has done work for another state and because of the size of population and fiscal situation in that state, they were forced to import attorneys and put them up in hotels; it was a poor state and the attorneys were two to a room at the hotel.
I'm paying more attention to how I spend money and have still been good about bringing lunch to work; I fell off the wagon on Monday and bought my lunch, but brought it the rest of the week. I talk myself out of things I want because I realize I don't need most of them.
I keep thinking about getting a different phone. And periodically getting obsessive about it. I have a backup phone for when this one dies, and it's three years old, so I have no idea how long it's going to last. One of my colleagues is offering me an old phone; her husband is the guy who gets a new phone, then takes her old phone when she gets a new one, so it sounds like they always have phones lying around the house. I may take her up on it so I get what I want and don't spend money.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Someone whose web-based e-mail is blocked in the workplace told me she forwards her home e-mail to her work e-mail.
I have problems with that on many levels; first, her department is sometimes involved in lawsuits in which her e-mail may be reviewed. Based on my document review experience; I know that anything may be captured and reviewed, depending on keywords. Second, she works for the government and in our state, anything that isn't restricted is presumed public. Meaning her e-mail, if for some reason it would contain a search term, may be public information.
Other than that? Generally, your work e-mail isn't completely private and may be accessed by the IT people for work-related reasons.
Bottom line? See if there's another way to get your information online. If that isn't possible, it may be time to review your cellphone options, obtain a data package and maybe get a new phone. But probably not since I'm the only one left who doesn't use their phone for anything but talking.
I have problems with that on many levels; first, her department is sometimes involved in lawsuits in which her e-mail may be reviewed. Based on my document review experience; I know that anything may be captured and reviewed, depending on keywords. Second, she works for the government and in our state, anything that isn't restricted is presumed public. Meaning her e-mail, if for some reason it would contain a search term, may be public information.
Other than that? Generally, your work e-mail isn't completely private and may be accessed by the IT people for work-related reasons.
Bottom line? See if there's another way to get your information online. If that isn't possible, it may be time to review your cellphone options, obtain a data package and maybe get a new phone. But probably not since I'm the only one left who doesn't use their phone for anything but talking.
Monday, November 3, 2008
QC
This project has been different from others in many ways, not the least of which is QC. Rather than the typical project, in which a separate team does qc of 100% of everyone's work, on this project, they run search terms in the materials labeled as responsive, and narrow it down that way. Only then does someone look through the materials to make changes if necessary.
Another part of QC is running searches to look for documents reviewed before decisions were made that countermanded what we were initially told, so they can be re-tagged or bucketed in a manner appropriate to current decisions.
The people on QC are from the first and second group of reviewers, with a few exceptions, who have worked for this firm on previous projects and were requested back.
Another part of QC is running searches to look for documents reviewed before decisions were made that countermanded what we were initially told, so they can be re-tagged or bucketed in a manner appropriate to current decisions.
The people on QC are from the first and second group of reviewers, with a few exceptions, who have worked for this firm on previous projects and were requested back.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Information Shift
One maddening aspect about reviews is that the person in charge provides variable information as definitions become more refined and broad document requests become narrowed.
I was part of the first group of people on this project, three more groups have been added and there are rumors of yet another group of people to be added. We've had some attrition on the project, which is to be expected.
Since the beginning, we have gone through a lot of information between training, further information provided by the litigation team, and random questions that have been individually answered. Consistent information doesn't seem to have been provided, but, as is typical, we try to fill each other in once questions arise. We also provide the litigation team information on what they have previously told us. Sometimes it changes after that, sometimes not.
People seem to be more confused right now, mostly due to the volume of new or refined directives. We're actually more fuzzy in some areas than when we started, and the litigation team is busier than ever so not in a position to clarify things for us as quickly as we'd like.
That's why there's a QC process, right?
I was part of the first group of people on this project, three more groups have been added and there are rumors of yet another group of people to be added. We've had some attrition on the project, which is to be expected.
Since the beginning, we have gone through a lot of information between training, further information provided by the litigation team, and random questions that have been individually answered. Consistent information doesn't seem to have been provided, but, as is typical, we try to fill each other in once questions arise. We also provide the litigation team information on what they have previously told us. Sometimes it changes after that, sometimes not.
People seem to be more confused right now, mostly due to the volume of new or refined directives. We're actually more fuzzy in some areas than when we started, and the litigation team is busier than ever so not in a position to clarify things for us as quickly as we'd like.
That's why there's a QC process, right?
Monday, October 13, 2008
More projects
As expected, it has been getting busier. Some projects are expanding and I saw ads from two companies in this market this week.
Ads themselves are interesting, it means that the agencies know that more attorneys will be licensed in a couple of weeks or that people are doing something other than document reviews, which give me hope.
It's always good to know that there's more work out there. We have a lot of agencies here for the size of the market and one of the newer ones may have hired someone from an agency that had been here longer. We don't have confirmation of anything except the recruiter left her old agency and the other agency hired someone from inside the industry. That's enough for me to think it's the same person.
Of course, more attorneys out there looking for work only creates more competition for the rest of us.
Ads themselves are interesting, it means that the agencies know that more attorneys will be licensed in a couple of weeks or that people are doing something other than document reviews, which give me hope.
It's always good to know that there's more work out there. We have a lot of agencies here for the size of the market and one of the newer ones may have hired someone from an agency that had been here longer. We don't have confirmation of anything except the recruiter left her old agency and the other agency hired someone from inside the industry. That's enough for me to think it's the same person.
Of course, more attorneys out there looking for work only creates more competition for the rest of us.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Corporate Buzzwords
I hate corporate buzzwords. Once you get into a review, it's easy to learn the industry jargon, merely from repetition. My pet peeve is "Robust" which serves only to annoy me.
It has its own definition in several industries. Particularly timely is that which is used in the financial world. According to Wikipedia: In economics, "robustness" defines the ability of a financial trading system to remain effective under different markets and different market conditions.
Apparently, Wall Street decisions were less robust than previously believed.
The upside to the downside is that there are likely to be lawsuits as a result.
It has its own definition in several industries. Particularly timely is that which is used in the financial world. According to Wikipedia: In economics, "robustness" defines the ability of a financial trading system to remain effective under different markets and different market conditions.
Apparently, Wall Street decisions were less robust than previously believed.
The upside to the downside is that there are likely to be lawsuits as a result.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Quirks and timetables
Everyone has quirks. I have them. You have them. That reviewer over there has them. Our quirks are normal though. For the most part. At least we think so.
I chew gum to stay awake some days, and probably chomp on it loud enough to annoy everyone around me. I put on hand lotion several times a day too.
Someone else eats on a very regular schedule.
I've been told of a reviewer who would remove shoes and socks to reveal stinky feet which were put on desk. Yuck!
Most of us just listen to music though. I'm with a fairly small group and everyone seems pretty normal.
I chew gum to stay awake some days, and probably chomp on it loud enough to annoy everyone around me. I put on hand lotion several times a day too.
Someone else eats on a very regular schedule.
I've been told of a reviewer who would remove shoes and socks to reveal stinky feet which were put on desk. Yuck!
Most of us just listen to music though. I'm with a fairly small group and everyone seems pretty normal.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Personal items people bring to document reviews
People tend to bring personal items with them to document reviews despite being discouraged by circumstances. It's one thing when you have a drawer to put things in, but that isn't always available. I'm always leery of leaving items behind in the evening, because you never know when the review will end or you for some reason will be dismissed.
Beyond the coffee mug, water bottle or snacks, people bring sweaters, CD's, lotion, kleenex, hand sanitizer, hot pots, coffee pots and mug warmers.
Some people bring a whole warehouse of snacks, beverages, personal coffee, tea, a salad bar; I'm actually not kidding with that one. On one review, instead of bringing lunch every day, there was someone who brought salad fixings and made a salad every day. Others bring 12-packs of soda, replenishing their supply as needed.
I don't bring a lot to a review. I have a gigantic purse, and most of what I need fits right in. Because I expect my current review to go a few more weeks, I leave lotion, tea and gum at my work station, my milk is in the fridge. I only leave things that are easily replaceable and I wouldn't be upset if for some reason I wasn't going back.
After all, we're not going to be there forever. It only seems that way.
Beyond the coffee mug, water bottle or snacks, people bring sweaters, CD's, lotion, kleenex, hand sanitizer, hot pots, coffee pots and mug warmers.
Some people bring a whole warehouse of snacks, beverages, personal coffee, tea, a salad bar; I'm actually not kidding with that one. On one review, instead of bringing lunch every day, there was someone who brought salad fixings and made a salad every day. Others bring 12-packs of soda, replenishing their supply as needed.
I don't bring a lot to a review. I have a gigantic purse, and most of what I need fits right in. Because I expect my current review to go a few more weeks, I leave lotion, tea and gum at my work station, my milk is in the fridge. I only leave things that are easily replaceable and I wouldn't be upset if for some reason I wasn't going back.
After all, we're not going to be there forever. It only seems that way.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Unfortunate Terms
Sometimes corporations choose unfortunate terms to use within their business. Ones that make everyday activities seem relevant for purposes of e-discovery. Like instead of having a decision-making process, having a business judgment. So everything related thereto will come up as potentially privileged.
My favorite potentially privileged items are the ones that get tagged due to the blurb at the bottom of someone's e-mail that says the information may be confidential or privileged. Gets in there every time. No matter what.
Other items would include people's names that seem relevant; if a hospital is being sued and has an administrator named Doctor, whose documents end up being tagged. No fun for either the litigation team or the document review team.
My favorite potentially privileged items are the ones that get tagged due to the blurb at the bottom of someone's e-mail that says the information may be confidential or privileged. Gets in there every time. No matter what.
Other items would include people's names that seem relevant; if a hospital is being sued and has an administrator named Doctor, whose documents end up being tagged. No fun for either the litigation team or the document review team.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
How to Occupy Oneself on a Document Review
Inspired by another blog, on which an attorney listed activities of colleagues, I bought a second mp3 player and German CD's so I can brush up on my language skills. I might as well, I listen to my ipod all the time; I like the mix of music on it so don't want to add anything as it's a couple years old, only 4g and full.
I considered online lessons, but decided to go with a company of which I've heard, Berlitz. They're a known quantity so it seemed a reasonable choice.
Maybe next I can run off to Germany and do document reviews for American firms with offices abroad.
I considered online lessons, but decided to go with a company of which I've heard, Berlitz. They're a known quantity so it seemed a reasonable choice.
Maybe next I can run off to Germany and do document reviews for American firms with offices abroad.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Business as Usual
It's always great to get out of town, and not so great to return to the review room. The best part is the steady paycheck.
Our review is still plodding along. Some custodians are easier to deal with than others; because it's technical information, the complexity of the work varies by custodian. I prefer it when the batches are easier; numbers are up and my brain doesn't turn to mush. Either way, it has to get done.
In this review we've been encouraged to mass annotate, which is new. On one review, our QC team was mass annotating, despite having been told not to. Most reviews on which I have worked haven't suggested mass annotations as an option. When possible, it does make the work go faster; however, sometimes it isn't possible.
Mass annotations seem to work best in batches with basically two choices; check one, leave the other. Immediately mark any other random thing. It's a great theory, but in some cases, custodian has too wide a variety of materials for it to be feasible. In those cases, it's just easier to mark them one at a time, or a few at a time.
Our review is still plodding along. Some custodians are easier to deal with than others; because it's technical information, the complexity of the work varies by custodian. I prefer it when the batches are easier; numbers are up and my brain doesn't turn to mush. Either way, it has to get done.
In this review we've been encouraged to mass annotate, which is new. On one review, our QC team was mass annotating, despite having been told not to. Most reviews on which I have worked haven't suggested mass annotations as an option. When possible, it does make the work go faster; however, sometimes it isn't possible.
Mass annotations seem to work best in batches with basically two choices; check one, leave the other. Immediately mark any other random thing. It's a great theory, but in some cases, custodian has too wide a variety of materials for it to be feasible. In those cases, it's just easier to mark them one at a time, or a few at a time.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Fatigue Sets In
This project is slightly more than two months old and due to a combination of complexity and having been provided with the easier part of the work first, my brain is turning to mush. On most projects, it starts out difficult and once I learn the material, it gets easier. This one isn't like that at all.
We've had training twice because they didn't bother training us on half the material as they hadn't collected from the custodians who might have the relevant material. Both parts were very complicated and it isn't getting easier.
Every day I hope I understand more and when I don't I review the key words and keep looking for them. Every day I get more tired. And we're not even working overtime.
We've had training twice because they didn't bother training us on half the material as they hadn't collected from the custodians who might have the relevant material. Both parts were very complicated and it isn't getting easier.
Every day I hope I understand more and when I don't I review the key words and keep looking for them. Every day I get more tired. And we're not even working overtime.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Project Extension
Our project has been extended and will have more people added. We've been informed that some of us will be diverted to other aspects, such as QC and a few other necessary evils.
Not that QC'ers are actually evil, but sometimes they seem so. On one review, the person in charge made it a clandestine activity, only known to those who were doing it. Eventually everyone knew who was on the QC team. On other projects, QC was segregated and didn't even sit with the other reviewers. I don't know whether that's typical or not.
I'm pleased at the extension of my paycheck and hope to have many more to come though I'm disappointed that OT hasn't been mentioned as a possibility. We thought the end of September would be the end, but it appears we'll be working through October. That may not seem long, but every month helps!
Not that QC'ers are actually evil, but sometimes they seem so. On one review, the person in charge made it a clandestine activity, only known to those who were doing it. Eventually everyone knew who was on the QC team. On other projects, QC was segregated and didn't even sit with the other reviewers. I don't know whether that's typical or not.
I'm pleased at the extension of my paycheck and hope to have many more to come though I'm disappointed that OT hasn't been mentioned as a possibility. We thought the end of September would be the end, but it appears we'll be working through October. That may not seem long, but every month helps!
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Document Review Tools
In my "career" as a document reviewer, I've used several different tools. They're all very easy to use but some are more user-friendly than others, as are the projects.
Right now I'm using a tool that nobody on the team has ever used before. I don't know whether it's a newer product or whether certain law firms or review rooms prefer to stay with the same tools. In this case, the review tool was client-driven; which makes sense. If you're the client and have had good results with a particular tool and have a good relationship with its provider, why change for the next project?
If you're a company that gets sued right, left and center, like some large corporations, it's to your benefit to stick with the same review tool since you don't have to reinvent the wheel; you don't have to go through the hassle of a) re-scanning documents or b) figuring out who to contact to get the electronic copies included in the new review. At that point, all you have to do for high-level employees is to collect documents from the last collection date forward, along with figuring out who else has relevant documents.
From a reviewer standpoint, while I prefer some review products over others, it doesn't really matter to me what product I use, as long as we can figure it out or there's someone who can contact the company if there's trouble.
In my current review, we have fewer layers and in our initial training were on a conference call with the trainer from the company. There's only one layer between so we get questions answered pretty quickly. They're in another time zone, so it isn't always convenient to call them, since there are a couple hours each day in which one party is in the office, but not both.
We do have a local company, Kroll OnTrack, which has a document review tool. Interestingly, I've only used it on one project. I don't know whether that was client or firm-driven.
Right now I'm using a tool that nobody on the team has ever used before. I don't know whether it's a newer product or whether certain law firms or review rooms prefer to stay with the same tools. In this case, the review tool was client-driven; which makes sense. If you're the client and have had good results with a particular tool and have a good relationship with its provider, why change for the next project?
If you're a company that gets sued right, left and center, like some large corporations, it's to your benefit to stick with the same review tool since you don't have to reinvent the wheel; you don't have to go through the hassle of a) re-scanning documents or b) figuring out who to contact to get the electronic copies included in the new review. At that point, all you have to do for high-level employees is to collect documents from the last collection date forward, along with figuring out who else has relevant documents.
From a reviewer standpoint, while I prefer some review products over others, it doesn't really matter to me what product I use, as long as we can figure it out or there's someone who can contact the company if there's trouble.
In my current review, we have fewer layers and in our initial training were on a conference call with the trainer from the company. There's only one layer between so we get questions answered pretty quickly. They're in another time zone, so it isn't always convenient to call them, since there are a couple hours each day in which one party is in the office, but not both.
We do have a local company, Kroll OnTrack, which has a document review tool. Interestingly, I've only used it on one project. I don't know whether that was client or firm-driven.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Patent Reviews
I'm working on a patent review and don't understand the subject matter. As always, we've been trained narrowly on the topic and have keywords; we may also use the bat-phone whenever necessary.
Since none of us are patent attorneys (they have actual jobs), none of us are very clear on whatever it is we're working on. It's like we're 20 kinds of stupid, nevertheless, reviewing the documents.
Incomprehensible document + keywords and engineer-speak = responsive.
Since none of us are patent attorneys (they have actual jobs), none of us are very clear on whatever it is we're working on. It's like we're 20 kinds of stupid, nevertheless, reviewing the documents.
Incomprehensible document + keywords and engineer-speak = responsive.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Whoops!
I've been a bit busy; my review is longer than originally planned, which is nice for us. It's still the same old-same old; click, click and click.
The major difference here is that there is a second level review, of which I'm a part. I and another attorney were told a few weeks ago that we'd be working on it. When I didn't hear any more, I assumed that I'd been passed over in favor of other reviewers. Not the case. We start on Monday. No doubt the documents will be even more exciting the second time around.
The major difference here is that there is a second level review, of which I'm a part. I and another attorney were told a few weeks ago that we'd be working on it. When I didn't hear any more, I assumed that I'd been passed over in favor of other reviewers. Not the case. We start on Monday. No doubt the documents will be even more exciting the second time around.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Random Food Items Provided by Agency or Firm
One Agency for which I worked tends to bring cookies or cupcakes once a month to reviewers; a minor sugar fix is little enough with which to show their appreciation of our hard work! Of course, in order to do so, they have to obtain permission and free passage to the review center in order to bestow their largesse upon us.
An agency that provides its own review center and initially brought in business from out of town, started out working in 3rd party space and provided breakfast to the morning crew and pizza to the evening crew.
The agency for which I worked on a longer project pretty much did nothing, until taking the few of us out to lunch after several months; we pretty much didn't hear from them the whole time this project went on, which was fine. There was nothing we needed and nothing they changed.
During the current project we rate the occasional tray of pastries or pizza to go along with our beverage center. I'm impressed that they provide sodas, sparkling water and iced tea since most reviews provide only tea and coffee, with the occasional place providing hot chocolate or lemonade packets.
The tea provided is Lipton, leaded or unleaded; this is only the second place at which I've performed a document review that has failed to provide multiple options for tea. One firm had 13 kinds of tea in their cupboard and most places have at least five different types. I bring what I like, as does a colleague. In a pinch, we can certainly drink Lipton; while I'm trying not to spend excess money, it's silly not to drink what I want, especially when tea doesn't cost that much and I stocked up on my last trip to Big Lots.
An agency that provides its own review center and initially brought in business from out of town, started out working in 3rd party space and provided breakfast to the morning crew and pizza to the evening crew.
The agency for which I worked on a longer project pretty much did nothing, until taking the few of us out to lunch after several months; we pretty much didn't hear from them the whole time this project went on, which was fine. There was nothing we needed and nothing they changed.
During the current project we rate the occasional tray of pastries or pizza to go along with our beverage center. I'm impressed that they provide sodas, sparkling water and iced tea since most reviews provide only tea and coffee, with the occasional place providing hot chocolate or lemonade packets.
The tea provided is Lipton, leaded or unleaded; this is only the second place at which I've performed a document review that has failed to provide multiple options for tea. One firm had 13 kinds of tea in their cupboard and most places have at least five different types. I bring what I like, as does a colleague. In a pinch, we can certainly drink Lipton; while I'm trying not to spend excess money, it's silly not to drink what I want, especially when tea doesn't cost that much and I stocked up on my last trip to Big Lots.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Absurd Results in Document Reviews
Because we're thoughtlessly responding to the queries, based on the litigation team's analysis of the discovery requests, document reviews always generate absurd results. When I say "thoughtlessly" I mean that it isn't up to me to interpret what I've been told; if it meets the criteria, it's in. Whether it makes sense? Totally different question.
For example, if I was on the case of Barbie v. Bratz (yeah, I know it's Mattell v. whoever manufactures the Bratz dolls and Barbie is a jealous bitch because Bratz were outselling her), reviewing the Bratz materials, it's very likely that any mention of Barbie or Mattell would be responsive. Even if it was a newsletter from the Barbie fan club. Or Amazon update about a Barbie sale. Barbie birthday cake? It's in. These are the types of absurdities about which I speak; I know that the planning related to somebody's child's Barbie birthday party is non-responsive, but under the rules with which I have been provided, it's responsive. There's always something of this nature during a document review, whether it's travel plans mentioning a responsive hotel, mention of Euro Disney (which might be generated by a controversy over Disney or over Euros), or the appearance of a weekly M&M newsletter.*
Sometimes people ask whether the absolute junk responsive items really are responsive. We're usually told yes. That could change later, when someone at a higher level in the food chain starts examining the documents and asks the partner about these incredibly responsive documents. At that point, we might be told not to include certain types of documents, but only after it's far too late and the third-level reviewers have to screen them out instead of just verifying that the document review group included the appropriate information.
There's a fine line between responding to the discovery request and dumping documents. I'm not sure what it is; by excluding even the junk documents that are per se responsive based on discovery requests, a firm risks accusations of withholding; including the junk documents could lead to allegations of document dumping. Then again, with the law firmly believing that what matters are the words of a document on its face, this could leave you in the did not! did too! zone.
It's quite likely that the attorneys formulating discovery requests are thinking of the types of documents in which they're interested which will be generated by the discovery request and don't give a thought to completely useless items also generated by the same document request. Meanwhile, until I'm told otherwise, if it's responsive, though completely junk, it's in.
*examples have no relation to any reviews on which I have worked.
For example, if I was on the case of Barbie v. Bratz (yeah, I know it's Mattell v. whoever manufactures the Bratz dolls and Barbie is a jealous bitch because Bratz were outselling her), reviewing the Bratz materials, it's very likely that any mention of Barbie or Mattell would be responsive. Even if it was a newsletter from the Barbie fan club. Or Amazon update about a Barbie sale. Barbie birthday cake? It's in. These are the types of absurdities about which I speak; I know that the planning related to somebody's child's Barbie birthday party is non-responsive, but under the rules with which I have been provided, it's responsive. There's always something of this nature during a document review, whether it's travel plans mentioning a responsive hotel, mention of Euro Disney (which might be generated by a controversy over Disney or over Euros), or the appearance of a weekly M&M newsletter.*
Sometimes people ask whether the absolute junk responsive items really are responsive. We're usually told yes. That could change later, when someone at a higher level in the food chain starts examining the documents and asks the partner about these incredibly responsive documents. At that point, we might be told not to include certain types of documents, but only after it's far too late and the third-level reviewers have to screen them out instead of just verifying that the document review group included the appropriate information.
There's a fine line between responding to the discovery request and dumping documents. I'm not sure what it is; by excluding even the junk documents that are per se responsive based on discovery requests, a firm risks accusations of withholding; including the junk documents could lead to allegations of document dumping. Then again, with the law firmly believing that what matters are the words of a document on its face, this could leave you in the did not! did too! zone.
It's quite likely that the attorneys formulating discovery requests are thinking of the types of documents in which they're interested which will be generated by the discovery request and don't give a thought to completely useless items also generated by the same document request. Meanwhile, until I'm told otherwise, if it's responsive, though completely junk, it's in.
*examples have no relation to any reviews on which I have worked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)