by Julia Romero Peter, Esq.
In re Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 3:12-MD-2391 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 18, 2013), the court held that defendant Biomet’s use of keyword culling and de-duplication in conjunction with predictive coding (technology assisted review) satisfied its discovery obligations.
In 2012, defendant Biomet began producing documents in a multidistrict products liability action that ultimately became consolidated in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Indiana. Biomet started identifying and producing documents despite certain plaintiffs’ counsel warning Biomet not to start production until the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided where to centralize the cases.
To identify relevant documents, first Biomet used keyword searching and de-duplication. The keyword culling decreased the document population from 19.5 million to 3.9 million documents and attachments. De-duplication reduced this number further to 2.5 million documents and attachments. Biomet performed statistical sampling of a random sample. It projected at a 99% confidence level that between .55 and 1.33 percent of the unchosen documents would be relevant and 1.37 and 2.47 percent of the initial 19.5 million documents were relevant. Biomet’s methods had found a notably higher 16 percent.
Subsequently, from the 2.5 million that resulted from the keyword and de-duplication methods; Biomet used technology assisted review (TAR) to determine the relevant documents to be produced. At the time of the court’s order, Biomet’s ediscovery costs were approximately $1.07 million. The costs are expected to amount to $2 to $3.25 million.
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee argued that Biomet’s use of keyword culling “tainted the process,” asserting that it was less accurate than using TAR. They sought to have Biomet redo the processing through production process using only TAR, starting from the original 19.5 million documents. In addition, they sought to have plaintiffs and defendant “jointly enter the ‘find more like this’ commands” during the TAR process. Biomet objected that “starting over would cost it millions.”
The court denied the Steering Committee’s requests. In finding that Biomet’s methods met its discovery obligations, the court noted, “The issue before me today isn’t whether predictive coding is a better way of doing things than keyword searching prior to predictive coding . . . .” It further noted that even if TAR could identify more relevant documents than keyword searching, as asserted by plaintiffs, it would cost defendant potentially millions of dollars. The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C) to “find that the likely benefits of discovery . . . equals or outweighs its additional burden on, and additional expense to, Biomet.” The court arrived at this conclusion even after considering a number of ostensibly compelling factors, including “the needs of the hundreds of plaintiffs in this case, the very large amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake, and the importance of this discovery in resolving the issues . . . .”
The court assumed that Biomet would be amenable to “meeting and conferring on more reasonably-targeted search terms and to producing the non-privileged documents included in the statistical sample.” It also stated that if the Steering Committee wanted documents only retrievable by redoing the processing through production steps the Steering Committee would have to pay the costs for doing so.
Download our FREE white paper:
This month marks the 17th anniversary since the founding of what is now TERIS. On June 5, 1996 company founder and CEO Stefan Wikstrom took the plunge into entrepreneurship with the founding of what was then "American Legal Corporation" (or ALC). The company later morphed into ALC Legal Technology before successfully rebranding itself as TERIS in January, 2009.
The legal industry has dramatically changed in the nearly two decades since Stefan served his first client and TERIS has continued to grow and evolve with the changes over time. We sat down to talk to Stefan to get some thoughts about the journey:
- How did you first get into the litigation support industry?
Luck brought me into the industry - my first job out of college was with a company that provided similar services in the legal industry - I had no idea the legal services space was as big as it is and the experience really opened my eyes to the industry (and potential). After working in it for a few years I felt that I could provide clients a better experience with a much higher level of service and performance...so I started my own company.
Over the years I've been approached many times by groups wanting to buy my business. Of course back then I thought I would have been out of the industry by now. Looking back, I'm very glad I didn't sell the business because of the exciting changes and growth we've experienced - especially the past 10 years. There have been so many changes in technology and these changes are consistently changing the dynamics within our organization and service offerings.
- What has surprised you most about working with (TERIS or litigation support)?
How fast we grew - it really took off. Also how intense and unpredictable this industry is. You hardly ever know what you're going to get. It can be very slow one day and then completely buried the next day. There really is no way to totally plan/predict because this industry is so reactive. We can only be so proactive in our sales efforts, that's why marketing is so important (to stay top of mind with clients for the times when projects do come up).
- What do you wish everyone knew about TERIS?
How talented and large our professional services team is. We have very strong technology team with a ton of bench strength. We have more than a dozen JDs and a tremendous number of professionals with legal software certifications. Also, how successful our managed service program has been in terms of reducing costs - and increasing efficiency - for large corporate clients.
- What do you find most challenging about this industry?
The fact that technology changes so fast - being a technology service provider we need to stay on top of the latest technologies in a rapidly changing environment to ensure we are constantly providing our clients with the best service in the industry.
- Who are your typical clients?
Early on it was almost exclusively attorneys and paralegals within law firms. Within the past 10 years this has changed and now a large part of our clientele are large corporations - both their legal teams and other divisions within the company. I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn how much work we're now doing for large corporations. When I started the company I always envisioned working with corporations but law firms were my direct experience/skill set so I targeted them first. But I always had an eye on corporations and knew it would build over time.
- What has been the scariest part of managing the business?
Probably the scariest step for me and for the company was when we decided to rebrand the company (in 2008). I wasn't really sure how clients and the industry would react but we felt like it was important to project the kind of company we had evolved into - which was a leading technology specialist. In hindsight it went great - it couldn't have gone any better and helped position us for where we are now.
- What would you say are some of your strongest beliefs about why TERIS has been so successful for 17 years?
Integrity. This is the key value we look for and reinforce in our team. This commitment has helped (and continues to help) us build strong long-term relationships with our clients (who we very much appreciate) and are the corner stone to our success.
- What might someone be surprised to know about you?
I competed in college athletics and used this competitive drive to build our business. Also, many people probably don't know I was born and raised in Stockholm Sweden. [Editor's note: most people also probably don't realize that Stefan is a former Pac-10 javelin record-holder for the Washington State Cougars].
- What's your first memory of (something related to the business)?
When I first started the company I sold during the day and did the production work myself at night. One night I was having dinner with my wife and at 7:30 the phone rang with a call from a client for an urgent project. It needed to be turned around and completed by the next morning. I cut the date short, went straight to the facility and sent it to the client the next morning (I barely slept). The entire first year I pulled double duty (sales and production). Initially I hired one employee to help but there were often bigger projects that needed both of us.
Building TERIS over the years has been a real privilege and a great ride so far. Our success over the years is directly attributed to the quality of our employees and leadership team. I'm very excited to see how we'll continue to evolve and change as we celebrate future anniversaries.
By Julia Romero Peter, Esq.
The Federal Trade Commission and International Trade Commission recently have revised its ediscovery rules. Both sets of rules aim to expedite the ediscovery process, ease discovery burdens and clarify privilege procedures.
FTC’s Revised Rules
On November 9, 2012, the FTC’s revised rules on ediscovery went into effect. These rules cover the compulsory process (16 C.F.R. §2.7), privilege claims (16 C.F.R. §2.11) and the duty to preserve information (16 C.F.R. §2.14(c)).
Rule 2.7 authorizes the Commission to issue a subpoena or CID ordering the recipient to testify or produce relevant material regarding a matter under investigation. Electronically Stored Information (ESI) is defined as “any writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images and other data or data compilations stored in any electronic medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form.” This includes metadata.
Rule 2.7 also requires a respondent to meet and confer with Commission staff “within 14 days after receipt of process or before the deadline for filing a petition to quash, whichever is first, to discuss compliance and to address and attempt to resolve all issues.” Any privilege issues likewise should be raised with the Commission.
Rule 2.11 describes the specifics for withholding privileged material. Privilege logs must be provided in a searchable electronic format and contain certain information.
Rule 2.11 also states that an inadvertent disclosure does not act as a waiver if the disclosure was inadvertent and the privilege holder “took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure” and “promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error, including notifying Commission staff of the claim and the basis for it.” The Commission must “promptly return or destroy the specified material . . . .”
Finally, Rule 2.14(c) provides that a respondent is relieved of its duty to preserve relevant information “after a period of twelve months following the last written communication from the Commission staff to the recipient or the recipient's counsel . . . .” This does not remove any obligation of respondent to preserve information for other investigations or litigation.
ITC’s Revised Rule
On May 15, 2013, the International Trade Commission revised its ediscovery rule related to Section 337 investigations (19 C.F.R. §210.27). The rule will be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The revisions bring the rule more in line with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). Generally, the revisions limit discovery when unduly burdensome or costly and address privilege issues.
The first revision permits a party under certain circumstances not to produce requested ESI if it is “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.” It also requires an administrative law judge to limit discovery if it is duplicative or “can be obtained from a less burdensome source” or where “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefits.”
The ITC revisions on privilege claims describes a “uniform set of procedures” for making privilege claims. Claims must be “expressly” made when a party responds to a discovery request. Moreover, privilege logs must be produced within 10 days of making the claims. The ITC “believes discovery will be most efficient when relevant privilege and work product issues are identified as soon as possible.”
The revisions also describe procedures for addressing inadvertent disclosures. Administrative law judges will need to apply federal and common law when deciding on the consequences of inadvertent disclosures, including whether the privilege holder “took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure” and other factors set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 502.
In summary, the FTC stated that its foregoing revised rules “will streamline the FTC’s investigatory process [and] make updates to keep pace with electronic evidence discovery . . . .” As a policy, the FTC stresses cooperation and “expects all parties to engage in meaningful discussions with staff to prevent confusion or misunderstandings . . . .” Similarly, the ITC enacted its revisions with the hopes of cutting costs, decreasing discovery burdens and disputes and expediting resolution of Section 337 investigations. It remains to be seen whether these hopes will come to fruition.
The knowledge and content management magazine KMWorld listed Relativity, an eDiscovery platform developed by kCura, as a trend-setting product of 2012. But Relativity is more than a trend. This software has become a game-changer and labeling it as a trend elicits an impermanence that undermines the credit this product deserves. Like the Ford Model T or the Internet, Relativity is establishing a precedent for the new era of eDiscovery.
Even though this product has over 75,000 active end users, including the U.S. Department of Justice and 95 of the top 100 law firms in the U.S., according to KM World, Relativity still remains relatively unknown. Relativity is a web-enabled discovery software aiding in the processing, review, analysis, and production of electronic documents.
This is a revolutionary application that manages terabytes of data while simultaneously allowing users to customize a database for their needs. Specifically, this application allows an unprecedented efficiency with control in the hands of the user.
Joseph Cusumano, a litigation support manager at Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman, says the upgrades moved more of kCura’s powerful features into litigation support’s control. "'We can quickly reallocate optical character recognition, production, and TIFFing without having to involve our IT administrators. That’s really what raised my eyebrows,'" he says in the article. With kCura devoting itself to continuous evolution offering a groundbreaking product that stands on its own, it’s clear to see while certainly being trendsetting is complimentary, it just doesn’t do it justice.
TERIS is a premiere partner of kCura with certifications in every Relativity module kCura offers. In fact, the same company that was responsible for developing the IT model for kCura Relativity designed the Relativity infrastructure for TERIS. The combination of TERIS’ Relativity Best in Service designation, along with the powerful benefits of Relativity, provide clients with more flexible workflow capabilities, making the platform stronger, faster, and even more powerful.
by Greg Behan, Esq.
A technical committee of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is moving forward with the development of standards for legal discovery involving electronically stored information (ESI). Previously, the committee generated international standards guidelines for the identification, collection, acquisition, and preservation of digital evidence with the goal of creating an impartial global mechanism for investigations involving digital devices and digital forensics. The ISO has created international standards for a diverse range of industries including food safety, healthcare, computers, finance, energy, automotive and service related products to name just a few. Their standards carry the weight of law in many jurisdictions and the scope and reach of the organization has helped to normalize global commerce.
The ISO committee's co-editor and U.S. representative is Eric Hibbard who is also Co-Chair of the American Bar Association’s E-Discovery & Digital Evidence Committee and CTO for Security and Privacy at Hitachi Data Systems. Hibberd’s committee elected to move forward with the development of E-Discovery standards during a meeting in France hosted by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute. Joining the United States in support of the creation of these international standards were the United Kingdom, Thailand, Belgium, Brazil, China, the Czech Republic, Mexico, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Italy and South Africa.
There are several U.S. institutions that have provided guidelines and recommended the adoption of technical standards for the production of ESI. In the past, there has been concern that technical standards may be premature given the continual advancement in technology and the ever changing litigation software landscape including the increasingly more common use of Technology Assisted Review (TAR) workflows. Depending on the dataset and the software tools utilized, a standardized process may inadvertently confer an advantage to one party over another. Just like any other industry, if international standards are adopted some firms will need to re-tool their processes in order to comply when working across international borders.
In order to control costs, large multinational corporations are becoming increasingly involved in the discovery process and will likely require law firms and vendors adhere to protocols developed by standards organizations like the ISO. This type of standardization will indicate that their company is purchasing services from a qualified source and will create metrics against which expenditures can be measured and analyzed to determine efficacy. Non-technical judges increasingly rely on standards organizations to make decisions related to eDiscovery issues and a set of recommendations by a renown institution like the ISO will certainly carry weight for any firm or business that relies on them before the bench.
1 http://meetings.abanet.org/webupload/commupload/ST203001/relatedresources/EDDE_JOURNAL-volume4_issue2.pdf Page 14
TERIS partner Nuix, and EDRM, the leading standards organization for the eDiscovery and information governance market, announced yesterday that they republished the EDRM Enron PST Data Set after cleansing it of private, health and personal financial information. Nuix and EDRM have also published the methodology Nuix's staff used to identify and remove more than 10,000 high-risk items at nuix.com/enron.
The EDRM Enron data set is an industry-standard collection of email data that the legal profession has used for many years for electronic discovery training and testing. It was sourced from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's investigation into collapsed energy firm Enron. In early 2012, the EDRM Enron PST Data Set and the EDRM Enron Data Set v2 became an Amazon Web Services Public Data Set, making them a valuable public resource for researchers across a variety of disciplines.
"Recently, we have been working closely with Nuix to cleanse the data set of private information about the company's former employees and make the cleansed data set readily available to the community," said George Socha and Tom Gelbmann, co-founders of EDRM. "These efforts help to protect the privacy of hundreds of individuals and we encourage anyone who finds private data that we did not remove to notify us."
Using a series of investigative workflows on the EDRM Enron PST Data Set, Nuix consultants Matthew Westwood-Hill and Ady Cassidy identified more than 10,000 items including:
60 items containing credit card numbers, including departmental contact lists that each contained hundreds of individual credit cards
572 containing Social Security or other national identity numbers—thousands of individuals' identity numbers in total
292 containing individuals' dates of birth
532 containing information of a highly personal nature such as medical or legal matters.
Many items contained multiple instances and types of information. This included departmental contact list spreadsheets with dates of birth, credit card numbers, Social Security numbers, home addresses and other private details of dozens of staff members.
The investigative team also clearly demonstrated that these items did not stay within the Enron firewall. For example, some staff emailed "convenience copies" of documents containing private data to their personal addresses.
"Nuix and our partners have conducted sweeps for private and credit card data for dozens of corporate customers and we are yet to encounter a data set that did not include some inappropriately stored personal, financial or health information," said Eddie Sheehy, CEO of Nuix. "The increasing burden of privacy and data breach regulations, combined with the strict requirements of credit card companies, make this an unacceptable business risk.
"Using the methodology we are publishing alongside the cleansed EDRM Enron data, organizations can identify private and financial data, find out if it has been emailed outside the firewall and take immediate steps to remediate the risks involved."
Nuix is currently applying the same methodology to the EDRM Enron Data Set v2, which it will also republish at nuix.com/enron.
Nuix will host a Twitter chat to discuss the release of the cleansed EDRM Enron PST Data Set on Thursday, May 23rd 2pm – 3pm ET. Nuix experts will describe the process of identifying unsecured financial, health and personally identifiable information in corporate data. Follow the hashtag #NuixChat and send in your questions beforehand to @nuix.
Download the latest TERIS white paper:
By Alexander Lubarsky, Esq.
Just when we thought that we were beginning to grow familiar with the 2009 Electronic Discovery Act, the State of California had to go and promulgate some new rules pertaining to ESI to keep us E-Disco dancers moving to that changing beat.
On January 1, several new changes went into effect for the California Code of Civil Procedure. The approved amendments address the production and discovery of ESI (electronically stored information) and protections for privileged communications. Understanding these important changes is critical to ensuring best practices for in-house counsel, and effective collaboration with outside counsel. Furthermore, having a firm grasp of the new rules always makes one appear more prepared and persuasive before the judge at a status conference or when arguing a motion - and similarly allows the ESI-rule-enlightened counsel to present himself or herself as a more fearsome adversary at the California EDA required Rule 3.724 meet and confer/status conference.
In California, it has long been the standard practice to maintain a log of all privileged documents. Although many California courts have requested production of this privilege log, the new additions to the Code of Civil Procedure now require that these logs be maintained and produced by law. Additionally, if an objection to the claim of privilege is filed, the withholding party must supply sufficient proof that the claims are merited.
The question of what constitutes “sufficient factual information” remains unanswered by California case law. However, a privilege log may be able to fulfill this requirement, according to the recent amendment.
ESI: Production and Discovery
Modern business practices call for new legislative changes; the old guidelines relating to physical documentation are insufficient to address the many issues that arise when handling electronically stored information. To this end, several provisions of California’s Code of Civil Procedure were amended specifically to address the production and discovery of ESI.
ESI now falls under the scope of items that must be produced upon subpoena. Previously, only physical items were bound by these laws. This marks a dramatic shift for future litigation; subpoenas may now request access to databases and computers in order to retrieve relevant ESI.
The new amendments also provide guidelines for objections if the source material were not reasonably accessible, or if responding to such a subpoena would cause undue cost burdens. In this case, the court may order evidence production and allocate the expenses to the requesting party.
Also, while the court has always been allowed the order of sanctions for parties who fail to comply with these discovery requests, the new amendments specify that sanctions cannot be issued for failure to produce ESI if the data in question has been altered, overwritten, damaged or lost due to routine maintenance when operating in good faith.
A court generally has the discretion to issue sanctions for the failure to comply with discovery requests. Under the new amendments, however, a court may not issue sanctions for the failure to produce electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered or overwritten as the result of routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.
Although it’s taken six years for them to catch up, California’s updated Civil Procedures now more closely mirror the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A new appreciation for the central role of ESI both in daily operations and during litigation is establishing new precedents for future legal proceedings.
TERIS has the tools and experience needed to create Privilege Logs, utilizing customized review tools to automate the process that meet the requirements of California’s State and Federal rules.
By doing your research upfront, you can deal with e-discovery without breaking your budget. There are a number of ways that you can cut costs and avoid significant financial set back. Below are nine tips that can help you save money - while still meeting all of your e-discovery needs and responsibilities.
- Streamline your e-discovery operations.
- Pare your procedures down to what is absolutely necessary. Sometimes with e-discovery, services or products might appear necessary initially, but prove to be superfluous upon more closely looking into the process.
- Become familiar with your options
- To find the most effective ways of handling ESI and electronic discovery procedures, you should familiarize yourself with the technology and processes available. You can acquire this familiarity by browsing through Internet articles on the subject, following blogs, and perusing the websites of service and product providers.
- Consult experts
- In the long run, it might prove better to seek the advice and expertise of a professional rather than taking the risk by handling e-discovery matters yourself. You could find that you've overlooked a particular electronic discovery need or that you've purchased a piece of software or equipment that doesn't properly meet your needs.
- Understand the process and how it relates to your needs.
- This is another aspect of electronic discovery that often takes a lot of research. Knowing the e-discovery process and applying it to your unique situation will help you make more informed decisions when purchasing services and/or solutions.
- Divide and conquer
- Leverage the combined knowledge of your firm by holding a meeting to deal with the electronic discovery issues at hand. Assign stakeholders research duties into particular solutions and products, become knowledgable and share the knowledge among the team.
- Keep up with the news and note electronic discovery changes
- Electronic discovery and ESI are still somewhat new and developing procedures, and rulings and regulations regarding electronic discovery are still changing on a regular basis. If you want to minimize your electronic discovery costs, it is imperative that you are aware of any new development in electronic discovery so you can discontinue a function if you no longer are responsible for it.
- Listen to your IT staff
- The team who best understands electronic discovery and the demands it places on your firm might just be your IT staff. They will be familiar with searching for data in your firm's computers and they will be able to critique a package of e-discovery software on its merits and flaws.
- Determine the best production format for your situation
- When you are in position to dictate the production format, consider which is best. You may be most familiar with one to two types of formats – but there are other options that can result in efficiencies and savings.. Weigh the pros against the cons and go with the option that gives you an advantage.
Although electronic discovery can place a burden on a firm, there are many ways to reduce costs and simplify the process. Being vigilant and putting sufficient time and effort into researching the possibilities can help you find affordable and practical electronic discovery solutions. The tips explained above are just some basic ways to save time and money in electronic discovery – but there are obviously many others.
Make no mistake, today’s e-discovery environment is complex and rapidly evolving. Without the right vendor, performing e-discovery services can be a costly and risky venture. But partnering with a trusted, sophisticated litigation support provider that specializes in e-discovery services can turn a risky venture into a smooth process.
Change Is the only Constant: Don’t Be Left Behind.
The e-discovery market is constantly changing. Every year, there is a new a class of e-discovery technology focused on addressing some section of the EDRM. These technologies can become outdated quickly. Case in point, judges have accepted technology-assisted review of data only recently. See Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, Civ. No. 11-1279 (ALC)(AJP), 2012 WL 607412 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012); Global Aerospace, Inc. v. Landow Aviation, L.P., Case No. CL 61040 (Vir. Cir. Ct. April 23, 2012); In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2012 WL 3899669 (W.D.La. July 30, 2012). But it is anticipated to become the norm quickly in 2013.
Invest in an expensive limited solution in-house, you may end up with quickly outdated and unsupported technologies. Partner with an e-discovery vendor who uses cutting-edge e-discovery technology and knows the ins and outs of e-discovery services, save your capital investment and the time and effort otherwise spent in constantly trying to optimize it.
In-Sourcing May Be Inefficient and Expensive.
In-sourcing expenses add up quickly. Starting an in-house e-discovery department includes the time and expense of finding, training and attempting to keep qualified employees; purchasing or leasing equipment and consistently updating your chosen e-discovery tool -- not to mention spending a considerable amount to license it. You also will need to improve your equipment to keep pace with the latest e-discovery technology requirements. All this for a service you may not even use on a consistent basis.
With outsourcing, you only pay for e-discovery services when you need them. Moreover, vendors offer alternative fee arrangements that may help keep down litigation costs.
It should be noted that a majority of law firms and corporations, at the very least, outsource data hosting. With its concomitant installation, maintenance and security issues; firms do not have the bandwidth nor the resources to deal with the hassles of data hosting.
Outsourcing Leverages E-Discovery Expertise . . .
E-discovery services are technical and require expertise and know how. At a trusted vendor, highly-skilled e-discovery specialists perform e-discovery work every day and have seen and solved the gamut of e-discovery issues. Last year, most e-discovery sanction cases resulted from corporations committing errors resulting from their inability to deal with voluminous data. A sophisticated vendor is an expert in dealing with large volumes and has established workflow and protocols in place to avoid such costly errors.
Centralized discovery management also provides the benefit of reducing the errors and costs typically associated with transmitting data.
. . . And Robust Security.
At this year’s LegalTech conference, an expert in law firm data security noted that “law firms are the soft underbelly” to their clients’ data. He explained that cyber-criminals do not even dispatch their best to hack into law firm data. Evan Koblentz, “LegalTech Day One: Relativity 8, Statistical Sampling, Law Firm Security,” Law Technology News, January 30, 2013, http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202586212889&thepage=3. Firms may minimize the risk of compromising their clients’ sensitive data by partnering with a vendor who employs a rigorous data security protocol that has been audited and certified by a recognized independent third party.
Such a trusted vendor, with its expertise, efficiency and security, may ease navigation of a constantly changing data world.
Richard Saldivar, President Arizona/Texas, recently announced that Marquis R. McElvine joined the Phoenix office as Senior Litigation Technology Engineer.
According to Mr. Saldivar, "TERIS’ core belief is to hire employees with exceptional industry experience so clients will experience individualized best-in-class customized solutions that allow them to pay for only what they need. We strive to be an integral part of our client’s firm and to act as their right arm. Our newest hire, Marquis holds advanced experience in managing and working with eDiscovery matters. His knowledge and expertise related to search technology, document preservation, technology vendor relationships, legal consulting, record management, governmental and regulatory agencies, and historic media analysis is noteworthy."
Marquis is proficient at using Nuix for processing and searching before loading results into Relativity and is a proven expert in computer literature, SQL, C++, Nuix, EnCase, FTK, Attenex, Viewpoint, Clearwell, eCapture/IPRO, iCONECT, Summation, and Concordance. He held positions of increasing responsibility at companies including eLitigation Solutions where he managed a team which provided application training, support, and demonstrations for internal and external clients; Forensics Consulting Solutions, where he served as the Operations Manager; Renew Data, forensic/data hosting; and RLS Legal Solutions of which Mr. Saldivar was the President for ten years.
“Richard Saldivar has a reputation for honesty, determination and authenticity. I witnessed first hand how he grew RLS Legal Solutions to become an industry leader and how he develops excellence in employees to provide remarkable value and service to clients. I am privileged to learn, grow and be a part of the TERIS Phoenix team,” states Marquis.
Marquis achieved a Bachelor of Science in Computer Engineering with a Minor in Mathematics from Johnson C. Smith University in Charlotte, North Carolina.
TERIS has seven regional locations throughout the United States. Founded in 1996, TERIS provides eDiscovery, Information Governance, Relativity and Computer Forensics solutions to corporate legal teams and law firms across the U.S. and internationally. TERIS’ staff of almost 300 was named one of the top 20 eDiscovery service providers in 2008 by industry researcher Socha-Gelbmann.