Practical Legacy Data Remediation - Redgrave LLP
1 like342 views
The document outlines a presentation on legacy data remediation, focusing on legal and technical strategies to manage both paper and electronic legacy data while minimizing costs and operational burdens. Key considerations include identifying risks, understanding data constraints, and employing a structured approach for data disposition. Real-world examples from companies illustrate the challenges and solutions involved in the remediation process.
Practical Legacy Data Remediation - Redgrave LLP
- 1. Legacy Data Remediation: A Practical Approach Presented to the Association of Litigation Support Professionals Wednesday, March 30, 2011
- 2. Today’s Panel Andy Cosgrove Partner, Redgrave LLP acosgrove@redgravellp.com Christian Rummelhoff Senior Analyst, Redgrave LLP crummelhoff@redgravellp.com Diana Fasching Senior Analyst, Redgrave LLP dfasching@redgravellp.com 2
- 3. Presentation Goals • Gain legal and technical perspectives into a legacy data remediation project • Identify unique issues associated with the remediation of paper and electronic legacy data • Introduce ways to manage costs and limit burdens on everyday business operations 3
- 4. Top 5 Reasons to Take Notice TOP #5) Litigation Costs #4) Litigation Risks; Why Keep Tomorrow’s Smoking Gun? #3) Reputation Risks; The WikiLeaks Effect #2) State & Federal Privacy Regulations #1) Retention Costs; The Box Burden 4
- 5. Re-Defining Legacy Data Paper: Electronic: • Paper files, Photographs, • Old Backup Tapes, Backups Marketing Materials, and Other Made Prior to Data Migration Hardcopy Documents • Orphaned ESI (e.g. • Materials Stored On and/or departmental file shares) Offsite (e.g. Iron Mountain) • Inactive/Decommissioned • Documents in the Possession Servers of Third Parties • Retained Collections of Hard Drives, CDs or other Media • Data in the Possession of Third parties 5
- 6. A Process for Addressing Legacy Data Iterative High-Level Risk-Focused Identify Disposition Understand Data Prepare Information Constraints Store(s) for Comparison - Retention Obligations - Origins - Preservation Matrix and - Statutory, Regulatory, - Date Ranges Materials Index Common Law Requirements - Formats - Similar Measures Allow - Contractual Requirements - Content Direct Comparison - Legal Hold Obligations - Custodian Disposition of Data Apply Risk Assessment (Reasonable Investigation) - Is Info Likely Relevant? - Is Info Likely Unique? - Duty to Preserve/Maintain? 6
- 7. Remediation Framework/Considerations • 3 Key Considerations: Iterative, High Level, Risk Focused • General Tips – Work From Available Information; Infer Where Reasonable – Identify Best Value Approaches to Additional Investigation – Document Each Step • Identify Deletion/Destruction Constraints – Identify/Clarify Constraints at Issue Using Measurable Descriptors • Understand Data Stores – Origins, Date Ranges, Formats, Content, Custodian – Key Differences in Population – Breakdown Material into Groups – Additional Investigation: Sampling, Interviews, Database Mining • Prepare Information for Comparison – Constrains and Materials - Use Same/Similar Descriptors • Apply Risk Assessment to Identify Disposable Information 7
- 8. Paper – A Real World Example Situation Process Resolution • Fortune 250 company with over 50K boxes of hard copy paper records eligible for disposition under the record schedule • Desire to dispose of material not subject to legal hold • Significant information available about the material in the boxes; less information available on open legal holds • Cost of assessment needed to be proportional to the cost of storing the material 8
- 9. Paper – A Real World Example Situation Process Resolution • Validated information about the materials – Sampled boxes to confirm accuracy of indices – QC missing and suspect information (e.g., dates) • Gathered information regarding legal holds – Reviewed all open holds and used available matter reporting capabilities – Follow-up • Created “Preservation Matrix” – Consolidated holds into manageable number of categories – Each category had as broad a scope as the sum of the component holds – Primary considerations: Record Code, Date Range; Also Geography, Department, – Obtained case-team sign-off on hold scope assumptions – High quality of indices meant no need for equivalent categorization of material • Iterative, Risk-Based Assessment 9
- 10. Paper – A Real World Example Situation Process Resolution • Recommended reasonable and legally defensible disposition of specific material – One third cleared at the first iteration (Record Code) – Another third cleared at the Record Code by date iteration – Final third held by a handful of cases requiring case-specific additional follow-up (collection, case team identification of relevant materials) • Other significant highlights: – Process from took longer than originally planned –the evolving hold environment (as cases open/close) complicated analysis – Outside counsel required some case-specific additional steps • Next time… – Identify critical cases (and most conservative attorneys) and involve those case teams much earlier in the process to prevent delays 10
- 11. ESI – A Real World Example Situation Process Resolution • Global 500 company with over 60K legacy media items in one division • Mostly backup tapes – Varying tape types and backup mechanisms (including NDMP) • Media assumed to contain emails, user files, application data and other unknown content • Little to no inventory information available for a large subset of the media items • Desire to dispose of this information to reduce legal risk and storage costs 11
- 12. ESI – A Real World Example Situation Process Resolution • Identified team members • Researched as much information as possible regarding media items and legal holds • Established sampling hypothesis – Materials on backup media were largely duplicative because legal hold custodians were preserving materials in active storage • Developed sampling strategy – Selected less than 50 (out of over 60K) media items to sample, targeting different date ranges and content (both email and file share backups) • Restored, indexed and then filtered data based on legal hold keywords • Reviewed for “responsiveness” and selected statistically valid set of emails and user files • Worked with custodians (and IT for former employees) to validate hypothesis 12
- 13. ESI – A Real World Example Situation Process Resolution • Recommended reasonable and legally defensible disposition of media items • Proceeded with destruction/recycling of approximately 80% of legacy media items • Continued hold on the remaining media items • Other significant highlights: – Process from kick-off to recommendations took about 8 months — several months longer than originally planned – Had to be flexible and adjust plan as issues were encountered – End result was well-received within Legal and by IT – Considering different approach on subsequent projects to minimize vendor costs 13
- 14. Other Real World Examples Examples? 14
- 15. Additional Resources • www.redgravellp.com: – Webcasts: “What do you want your legacy to be?” – Link: Sedona Commentary on Inactive Information – Podcast Links: • Dealing with Legacy Data – What to do About ESI Messes Today • Will Judges Think it is Okay to Use Clustering & Suggestive Coding Tools • Organizations: 15