The Legal department still rules the eDiscovery roost. However, there are critical aspects of eDiscovery that are well outside Legal’s area of expertise and solidly in IT’s camp. For example, Legal identifies keyword search parameters and the collection parameters, but the average extent of their expertise is shooting off emails to IT and data custodians. This worked fine when eDiscovery was less demanding and when data stores were smaller, but today these methods are dangerously inaccurate.
Knowing they need to do something, Legal may contract with service providers or law firms to do their collections. This approach usually consists of IT copying backup tapes onto transportable media and shipping it off to the service provider. Another alternative is to establish an archiving service with a remote service provider who provides eDiscovery collections on the hosted collection.
These aren’t bad alternatives, but they have drawbacks. First, hiring an outside company to do collections is an expensive proposition. Service providers cannot waltz into enterprise data centers and start to collect data; they need to be highly vetted and highly qualified – and this translates into highly expensive. Second, remote hosting with eDiscovery services can be very attractive for searching long-term archives. But it does not help when collecting from a plethora of locations where data is stored: backup tapes, archive systems, servers, laptops, workstations, SharePoint, Documentum, and more.
Given these considerations, the collections process is showing signs of moving away from service providers and coming in-house. There are several factors controlling this movement including:
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: enterprisestorageforum.com
By: Christine Taylor
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment