An Expert Panel Discussion
Examining E-Discovery in Detail and Overview

Lamont: David, when Marin IT deployed ZyLAB, how did things go? Was it a smooth process?

Cooper: We received a lot of the discovery information in hard copy and needed to scan it. The OCR engine worked well; that was all great. The most challenging thing was getting the defendants, the people who were bringing the documents to us, to produce the document with accurate "load files." Load files indicate where the document begins and ends. We needed to work with the people who brought us the documents in order to educate them about how to produce the information.

Lamont: Lawyers are not always known for their early adoption and their love of technology. What was the user response?

Cooper: That’s all over the map. We’ve got some people who absolutely love it and use it constantly. Some people have clearly been practicing law a lot longer and are more set in their ways, and they’ll ask their admin assistants to perform the searches. They want some of it produced in paper so they can sit at their desk and read, because it’s the way they’ve always done it and they are most comfortable with paper.

Lamont: Did the client for this case express any concerns about having a lot of sensitive information hosted outside the organization?

Cooper: It was definitely a topic of conversation. We have very strong physical security, with locked cabinets, closed-circuit television and biometric security. Then, of course, we also have IT security, with password protection and Windows-based security and HTTPS certificates. But it was interesting to see that the majority of the users were more concerned with physical security.

Lamont: How important is it for the data to be available in native format?

Scholtes: Although the lawyers initially want to start working with native file formats, they want to go to a bit-mapped format as soon as data has been produced for third parties. They know there is a lot of hidden information in those native file formats, like comments and tracked changes. Producing in TIFF and unsearchable PDF strips out this information. It’s also easier to redact in these formats and know the redacted information can never be read.

Cooper: We do keep the original file in its native format, whether it is a TIFF file, Word, Excel or an email .PST file. But it’s true; the lawyers don’t request the native file format very often. Most of them are working with the system, asking for export of certain items, tagging and categorizing. If the data is not bit-mapped, ZyLAB stores it in XML format, and that’s what the users are tagging.

Lamont: Why did ZyLAB opt to store the data in XML?

Scholtes: We were first confronted with having to search very large collections of email back in 1997. There are many different email formats, and messages often arrive with attachments. Our users want 100% recall, including messages embedded within another message, and the associated attachments. XML can do this, plus it’s very endurable and sustainable, and unlike many of the email formats, you will be able to access XML files in 10 or 20 years. Using XML is part of our philosophy of having an open architecture.

Cooper: An open architecture is important. Having standards like XML that we could work with, we were able to get all the content into a common format.

Lamont: What are some of the broader effects of the open architecture?

Scholtes: Lawyers often want to work with specialized forensic software products or court presentation tools, and they need to integrate these products with their e-discovery system. For example, InData’s Trial Director and CaseSoft’s CaseMap are popular court presentation tools that people often want to integrate.

Lamont: Barry, considering how many software products there are for different aspects of e-discovery, do you see consolidation in the future and more end-to-end solutions?

Murphy: I think there are two moves toward the end-to-end solution. One is on the software side—the software vendors are gaining capabilities, either through acquisition or building out their products, to address the full e-discovery process all the way from collection through review. The other is through the services side. At heart, e-discovery is a process that is ripe for outsourcing. Companies will create models whereby they can host not only the data but also the platforms to create an end-to-end solution, even if it’s not available from a single vendor.

---

Panel of Experts

David Cooper
Principal, Marin IT

"We’ve got some people who absolutely love it and use it constantly.
Some people have clearly been practicing law a lot longer and are more set in their ways."

Barry Murphy
Principal Analyst, Forrester Research

"The heat is on for organizations to start managing their information
proactively, but they are just not prepared to do this."

Dr. Johannes Scholtes
CEO, ZyLAB

"Lawyers often want to work with specialized forensic software products or
court presentation tools, and they need to integrate these products with their e-discovery system."