Canadian Lawyer

w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m M a y 2 0 1 4 21 available for search and review; for mysteries, I aim to create conditions in which I can analyze and eliminate non- responsive information and draw con- nections between disparate data points. Organizing cases into these two basic search intent buckets also informs my choices about the best use of technol- ogy, including which one to use, the use of search terms, and the optimal approaches for the identification, pres- ervation, and collection of data. It's important to recognize the char- acterization of the case by search intent can occur very early in the litigation process, and does not actually require a knowledge of the content of the docu- ments or of the company's IT systems. Generally, I can do this by reviewing the pleadings and interviewing people with knowledge of the case and its theory. The most common kind of case I encounter is the go-and-get case. The go-and-get case corresponds to Gladwell's puzzle. Go-and-get cases are typically characterized by the ability to specifically identify either custodians or specific records, by document name or some other bibliographic criteria. Often, specific documents required to be produced can be identified, even pinpointed, even if they can't be spe- cifically pinpointed within a compa- ny's systems. Often, search terms are helpful in go-and-get cases. Generally, we can also know with some certainty when we have the applicable docu- ments. In review, documents can be classified with certainty as belonging, or not belonging, to the responsive set, and each document can be individually assessed. In contrast, search-and-find cases typically do not have known or iden- tifiable documents as the focus of the search, but a series of evolving questions that need to be answered by reference to the documents. Almost all fraud and conspiracy cases have search-and-find dimensions. These cases are character- ized by the difficulty of knowing exactly what is being looked for, or in identifying a full complement of search terms that will yield a responsive set. Frequently, document groups needs to be examined and reviewed in context for responsive- ness. Simply adding more documents, more custodians, more search terms, more data sources compounds the chal- lenges in reviewing a document set that has been collected in response to a mys- tery. Consequently, putting more review- ers on such document sets compounds the review challenges because more eyes decrease the ability to make con- nections between disparate items and to make sense of individual documents in context. In these cases, radical culling of the set, employing different techniques to slice the set into different views, and the use of analytic technology to find non-textual relationships between doc- uments can assist in surfacing informa- tion useful to understanding the mate- rial in the set. Dera J. Nevin is an e-discovery law- yer and consultant with re:Discovery Law PC and can be contacted at dera.nevin@rediscoverylaw.com. INHOUSE For more information contact InHouse editor Jennifer Brown at jen.brown@thomsonreuters.com 9th Annual INHOUSE General Counsel Roundtable This year we took our annual roundtable on the road to Calgary and spoke with fi ve general counsel who represent a range of industry sectors. They shared insights into managing the demands of the in-house role. Gail Harding, SVP, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, Canadian Western Bank Bryce McLean, VP Legal & Corporate Secretary, Pason Systems Grant Borbridge, VP Legal & General Counsel, MEG Energy Karen Jackson, General Counsel, University of Calgary Bonita Croft, VP Legal, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, Trican Well Service Ltd. Read it and watch video coverage online at www.canadianlawyermag.com/inhouse May 26 th COMING IN June 2014 Sponsored by FieldLaw_IH-Roundtable_CL_May_14.indd 1 14-04-17 12:38 PM

• Cover