Note: This article was written by Francis George.
Buying software won’t solve an eDiscovery problem overnight according to a group of panelists on a recent webinar. The panel debated the pros and cons of keeping eDiscovery in-house or outsourcing it – which we’ve summarized below into three reasons for outsourcing eDiscovery.
1. Reactive vs. proactive
The consensus recommendation from the group on a reactive issue involving eDiscovery – the sort of thing that blindsides a company on a slow afternoon – was to outsource the work.
“If it’s reactive you’re too late,” said David Cowen, of The Cowen Group. “There is no way that on any case that’s already going on you have time to bring e-discovery in-house for that case. If you’re thinking about bringing it in-house, you’re thinking about a case that’s coming down the pike.”
2. Data security
“Where is the data going, where is it going to sit, how is it protected, who is going to see it, what are you going to do with it, how are you going to do it – it’s all about risk,” he said. The risk isn’t worth taking when managing privileged information – that it slips out through user error, or something worse, such as a breach.
3. Murphy’s Law
If something can go wrong, it usually does. No company wants “to explain to a judge or opposing counsel” that a glitch will cause a protracted delay, according to Mr. Cowen.
“We’re doing this in-house and we screwed up,” he said. “If you’re going to take it in-house then you’ve got take responsibility for that and, you know, it’s a lot of responsibility.”
* * *
This entry was derived from a LexisNexis Panel Discussion moderated by George Socha, the president and founder of Socha Consulting LLC, an electronic discovery consulting firm.
Sign up for the next webinar: An audio recording of this webinar is available online.
If you enjoyed this post, you might also like:
Walmart AGC: Keys to “Insourcing” Early Case Assessment