High Stakes Investigatory Document Review and

Analysis

Executive Summary

Legal document reviews in high stakes cases are today characterized by the significant amount of

information created and stored electronically. An effective document review is an investigative

process that provides counsel with real time insight into the nature of the dispute as it evolved,

including the rich perspective of each participant during its evolution. Electronically Stored

Information (ESI) and large scale document reviews are handled better by law firms that are

steeped in a culture of curiosity and the importance of fact based arguments. The volume of

electronic discovery dictates that an investigatory approach utilizing appropriate search

technology is required during document review and analysis. An attorney on the trial team

should provide sufficient insight into the themes, concepts and narrative of the dispute to enable

the document review team to engage in the successful subject coding, or “tagging” of the

documents. In order to guide the search effectively, it is essential that the attorney representing

the trial team be prepared to respond to questions from the document review team in a timely

fashion. It is also essential that the document review and analysis be approached as an

investigation, where as relevant information is uncovered, it is utilized to adjust case related

themes and concepts to provide the best legal representation. The investigation of the discovery

materials must remain proportional to the significance of what is at stake.

-i-

Links by Section

Two Introductory Case Studies:...................................................................................................... 1

U.S. v. Swanson, a criminal anti-trust case ................................................................................. 1

A global law firm BK investigation, and 26 issue tags ............................................................... 1

Assumptions .................................................................................................................................... 3

Roles and Responsibilities .............................................................................................................. 3

Investigatory Document Review and Analysis in Three Concurrent Tiers .................................... 5

Investigatory vs. Linear Document Review................................................................................ 6

The use of Search and Sampling during Document Review ...................................................... 7

Statistical Sampling .................................................................................................................... 7

Quality Control Protocol during Managed Document Review ................................................... 7

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 13

The use of search to drive the review of “standard” files ......................................................... 13

Dealing with “exceptions” in processing .................................................................................. 13

The Specific Challenge of Tagging for Relevance .................................................................. 14

The Specific Challenge of Tagging for Privilege ..................................................................... 15

The Specific Challenge of Locating and Identifying “HOT” Documents ............................... 15

APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................... 16

Document Review Security: ..................................................................................................... 16

Security at BartkoZankel‟s offshore review facility: ................................................................ 16

APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................... 18

Hosting for document review and production: ......................................................................... 18

-1-

U.S. v. Swanson, a criminal anti-trust case

The first document review for which we included an offshore component was U.S. v. Swanson, a

criminal anti-trust trial stemming from the investigation of the DRAM industry. Discovery was

characterized by the Department of Justices‟ producing voluminous Grand Jury materials that

were poorly/non-indexed, and laden with garbage (files with non-usable information, code files

in a non-code related event, et al.). In addition the Grand Jury materials included the substantive

discovery that had already been done in related civil cases involving the DRAM industry.

This was a time sensitive review, and under the circumstances (the indictment of an individual),

we felt it was important to both achieve the highest quality review in the available time frame

and keep the costs for that review as reasonable as possible for Hynix, the company that was

covering the defense expenses.

The time constraints caused us to have to carve up the Grand Jury production and further civil

productions and to actively choose which portions to review. The „carving‟ was driven by active

searches in consultation with the trial team, and the final decisions about which portions to

exclude from inclusion in the „eyeball‟ component of the document review were made by

informed lead counsel.

The jury voted 10-2 for acquittal and the government dismissed the case.

A global law firm BK investigation, and 26 issue tags

During the initial investigative and discovery phase of the bankruptcy of a 119 year old global

law firm, it was determined that one of the greatest difficulties was going to be sorting out what

was worth looking at within the dilapidated IT infrastructure of a 119 year old law firm with

thousands of clients.

We relied on our use of a front end SQL database for the sorting of “standard” versus

“exception” files and further culling through the use of natural expression searches to determine

which parts of the collection to move further along into Relativity for document review. It

should be noted that the original collection for the Heller Ehrman BK required that it be far more

extensive than the components of it that would be initially investigated. In order for the Trustee

to proceed with the pursuit of assets, the initial investigation had to yield recoveries that would

fund further investigation because of limited resources.

The number of different relevant search terms and associated concepts resulted in the use of 26

issue tags during the review. Because as the number of issue tags grow, the opportunities for

erroneous tagging grow as well, we were somewhat reluctant to go that high. Nevertheless, our

1st tier in the Philippines performed admirably. During the review, feedback and commentary

from the 1st tier in the Philippines became the basis for inquiry into, and discovery of, a series of

codenames (the names of baseball teams in the email of a law firm that had never represented

any) used to describe various efforts to merge or sell the firm before its demise. While there was

an awareness of codenames, the problem was figuring out all of the codenames in use, and when

-2-

they changed. In the case of three potential Chicago suitors, there were the Cubs and the White

Sox, but having run out of baseball teams, there was also Deep Dish Pizza which was also

rendered on occasion as: DDP, or sometimes just Pizza. Determining which emails were

relevant was a significant project, as they had to be produced to the Bank of America. One of

the challenges was to generate searches that reduced the number of false positives through the

use of time frames and the careful comparison of search outcomes. And while the firm had an

official email deletion policy, it was dysfunctional, as a single individual had been tasked with

the review of email marked for deletion and was simply overwhelmed. We have had several

conversations with purveyors of various predictive coding solutions who believe that their own

tools would not have been able to identify these codenames. (It should be noted that we are in

the habit of applying our own “predictive” efforts across individual queries when they are large

enough and we believe our search methodologies will be helpful. We do not in any way dismiss

the potential benefits of predictive coding, but we believe that it is very important to understand

its limitations.)

This initial investigatory phase of the Heller Ehrman BK has already resulted in an $8 million

settlement between the Bank of America and the Heller Ehrman Estate.

-3-

This paper discusses measures that have been effectively used by BartkoZankel‟s practice

support group--BZresources--during investigatory document review and analysis for civil and

criminal anti-trust trials, a nine figure confidential arbitration, and the investigatory phase of a

global law firm bankruptcy.

This paper assumes that adequate measures and the documentation of chain of custody were

undertaken during the collection, culling, and processing stages of any case related ESI. Please

note that nothing as straightforward as deNisting, de-duplication versus near de-duplication, or

the batching of “trash” email (law.com, listservs, other clearly not relevant group mailings) has

been covered here.

It is assumed that the collected ESI will be hosted in a secure location with adequate fail safes,

redundancy and back ups in the case of power and network outages, and that an appropriate

document review “tool‟ will be chosen to facilitate the document review and analysis.

Organizational technology to facilitate document review and analysis is in a constant state of

development, and we often write our own scripts to improve workflow or to enhance Quality

Control and Reporting. Please see Appendix B for commentary on Security.

Being “technology agnostic” does not prevent us from understanding and advising on the

potential benefits of Enterprise level tools in the early limitation of ESI productions to outside

counsel.

BZresources has been engaged directly by other law firms on behalf of their clients, and BZr is

open to direct engagement by companies.

Investigatory document review and analysis requires that the client, trial team, and Project

Manager frame the overall scope of the investigation that will govern the document review. A

stable representative of the trial team‟s involvement and supervision is sufficient for most

litigation.

-4-

Information must be exchanged to ascertain the scope of a project

We believe that the representative from the trial team should remain constant throughout the

event, as experience has shown us that shifting this responsibility amongst members of a team

creates unnecessary confusion. The goal is stable points of contact and a clear path for the

exchange of information and direction throughout the course of the engagement.

The Project Manager is responsible for:

Advice during the determination of the scope of the document review and analysis

Providing a constant and stable point of contact

Reporting at agreed upon intervals to counsel

Counsel is responsible for:

Supplying and updating the case narrative

Responding to questions and concerns from the Project Manager

Providing and adjusting topics for investigation as “Hot” documents are returned

CounselProject

Manager

-5-

The investigation and production of relevant materials

BZresources utilizes a Three Tier Document Review and Analysis framework, where the 1st

tier

is comprised of attorneys and legal professionals in the Philippines who can be relied upon to

provide greater attention to detail and to carefully follow instructions. The 2nd

tier at our SF

Offices is comprised of attorneys able to make contextual decisions regarding potential

relevance, and to identify the more significant “hot” documents. The 3rd

tier consists of a Final

Privilege and Quality Control Team, which reviews for privilege, reasons for privilege, finalizes

the privilege and redaction logs, and addresses any remaining outstanding decisions related to the

document review and analysis. All 3 Review Tiers are managed by BartkoZankel eDiscovery

Counsel.

Investigatory Document Review and

Analysis

Counsel

Culled Custodian ESI

Project Manager

Relevant materials for Production

-6-

Investigatory Document Review and Analysis in Three Concurrent Tiers

Utilizing offshore review services allows us flexibility with staffing, enabling us to quickly

expand to meet short deadlines during high volume relevance reviews. Review Management is

provided by Document Review Project Managers supervised by BartkoZankel litigators. The

depth of Document Reviewer Training and selection of Quality Control criteria are made in

conjunction with the client‟s representative, ensuring the greatest accuracy, delivered on time

and within the agreed upon budget.

Investigatory vs. Linear Document Review

BartkoZankel moved to an investigatory rather than linear engagement with discovery materials

in 2005. The size of discovery collections has increasingly become such, that a linear approach

is time consumptive and unsophisticated in light of the opportunity to conduct searches across

Electronically Stored Information (ESI). It was determined that an interactive engagement with

the discovery materials, where the narrative was expanded or collapsed based upon review

findings was far more useful and efficient than a linear engagement.

1st tier review ‐ issue coding, potentially

privileged, further review, first cut of

“hot” docs

2nd tier review ‐ enhanced issue

coding, deposition preparation,

document and issue research

Privilege review ‐ advanced privilege

analysis and preparation of

privilege log under direct supervision

of responsible counsel

Redaction and redaction log

-7-

The opportunity to collate supporting materials and test potential theories for support inside the

discovery materials has also helped generate a deeper and more facile understanding of the

discovery materials amongst our own attorneys, and those of outside firms who have engaged

our services.

The use of Search and Sampling during Document Review

The Trial Team should direct the conferences focused on early interviews accompanied by

selected peeks at the related Electronically Stored Information (ESI). The Trial Team should be

involved during the initial generation of keywords, a cast of characters, the beginnings of a

timeline, and the identification of facts that must be checked in regards to the case narratives.

While the use of keyword search to help identify responsive documents has swiftly become a

standard culling practice, BZr has further experience in the use of regular expression searches,

SQL search, the use of Concept and Content Search Engines, and email threading tools. Early

theories and concepts of the Trial Team must be tested and refined against the actual discovery

materials using such search tools, and analysis of the document sets returned, or a statistical

sampling of those document sets depending upon their size. Other tools for Technology Assisted

Review, such as “predictive coding”, can also be used in this context, where the “predictive tool”

is applied across a document set that is returned. BZr has run in-house tests on the functionality

of 4 “name brand” providers in this space. Our use of “concept search” in previous reviews

could be replaced by “predictive coding” during a real world review. In either circumstance, the

lead attorney remains the appropriate driver of initial themes and concepts that inform the

identification of issues that should be tagged during the subjective coding of the case related ESI.

Please see Appendix A for further information on the use of search to drive document review.

Statistical Sampling

Statistical sampling can be used to develop a principled and structured way to discuss the entire

document population, or any given sub-set of the population. Testimony regarding the use of

sampling during discovery has been offered in several court cases. BZr recommends the

sampling of excluded documents (non-responsive set), and on occasion the sampling of larger

sub-sets returned during individual searches to determine whether particular sub-sets identified

by query should receive further review.

Quality Control Protocol during Investigatory Document Review

An investigatory approach to document review structured in 3 tiers including a final review for

privilege requires the significant involvement of counsel via a Project Manager who maintains a

global perspective as the document review unfolds. The attorneys who interact with the Project

Manager must be thoroughly briefed on the significance of the matter and able to provide

thoughtful judgment on the significance of “hot” documents in dialogue with the Project

Manager, while helping suggest searches to populate individual reviewers document queues

based on investigative priorities set by the trial team.

A member of the Trial Team should act as liaison between the document review team, the

Project Manager (PM), and trial counsel. If the trial team does not provide adequate supervision,

-8-

the document review will inevitably suffer. Substantive questions from the document review

team should ideally receive a response within 12 hours in order to keep the process flowing

smoothly.

1) Thoughtful involvement and active supervision by well informed counsel is the most

general and essential of several steps required to perform sufficient QC during a high

volume document review.

After being appropriately briefed by counsel, the Project Manager must „train‟ the review team

for the specific document review in which they will be involved. The more informed, monitored,

and supervised, a large group of reviewers is, the more thoughtful and correct will be the

document review and subjective issue coding. The training, and any subsequent updates to it

that may be required as the discovery collection yields new, important information to supervising

counsel, provides the document reviewers with insight into counsel‟s developing themes, and

allows the thoughtful coding of documents that are both supportive and damaging to that

strategy, as both must be identified.

The review team must have a general understanding of the litigation before the review begins.

This can be accomplished by an appropriately informed member of the Trial Team in 1 to 2

hours.

2) Sufficient reviewer training prior to the review, and training updates during the review as

required.

The first tier of the document review should begin on a “double-blind” basis. That is, at the very

outset of the review, pairs of document reviewers should be receiving the same review queues of

documents (identical queues). By beginning the review in this fashion, analysts can compare

coding on a 1 to 1 basis, while checking discrepancies and identifying any reviewers who may

have misinterpreted the initial training. If this begins smoothly, we have confirmation that the

training was well received, and if it is rocky, it points out issues that need to be clarified early on

before any bad habits have developed.

When tagging for relevance, privilege, and “hot” documents, appropriate instruction is a key

element of success. A poorly trained reviewer will tag poorly. A well instructed reviewer may

misunderstand a concept and tag certain items inappropriately, but this can be identified and

corrected early if the review begins as a double-blind event with proper Quality Control (QC)

protocols. Please see Appendix A for further discussion of the specific challenges of accurate

tagging.

-9-

A “double blind” start is short in comparison to the duration of the actual review, but is an

important way to cautiously begin such a significant undertaking. Given the degree of

importance associated with any given query that is later batched to be queued for a specific

reviewer, it may be appropriate to QC their initial progress via double blind review later in the

document review as well. Because of budgetary constraints, double blind review is never a

significant portion of a document review; however, we believe it should be used judiciously to

ensure quality at the front end.

3) Appropriate use of “double-blind” review to identify how well individual reviewers have

integrated the review training into their subjective issue coding decisions.

Review Queue

Reviewer A

Doc1

Tag Issue 1

Doc2

Tag Issue 1

Review Queue

Reviewer B

Doc1

Tag Issue 1

Doc2

Tag Issue 1

Review Queue

Reveiwer C

Doc3

Tag Issue 2

Doc4

Tag Issue 3

Review Queue

Reviewer D

Doc3

Tag Issue 2

Doc4

Tag Issue 7

-10-

Supervision of the review should also entail the use of a review team leader drawn from the

review team, engaged in an active QC role throughout the review, and facilitating the transfer of

information amongst the team. The team leader is largely responsible for answering reviewer

questions, overseeing the exchange of information amongst the review team as the document

review unfolds, and interacting with the PM for further clarification on the subjective issue

coding of documents as required. The team leader is also involved in providing QC by sampling

the queues of the other members of the team. Reviewers may at times be pulled aside to provide

QC to the queues of other reviewers on the team as caution and budget dictate. Any

discrepancies in coding judgment should be identified and sent up the supervisory chain for final

decision on the appropriate coding. The team leader makes sure that the decision log being kept

in conjunction with the PM is posted for review team reference.

4) The designation of a review team leader drawn from the review team to facilitate

information transfer inside the review team and act as a point of contact for external

supervision.

Client

Counsel

Project Manager

Team Leader

Reviewer

Reviewer

Reviewer

Reviewer

Reviewer

Reviewer

-11-

During a “concurrent review”, responsive documents are moving from the First into the Second

tier for a second review and coding qualification, along with further appraisal of any associated

issue tags (during the investigatory review of the global law firm bankruptcy, there were 26 issue

tags), or the confirmation of the designation: “potentially privileged”. We utilize a Second Tier

comprised of litigation associates and experienced contract reviewers, who have access to the

Document Review Project Manager in charge of the document review and controlling the

population of individual document review queues. The Trial Team remains in contact and

communicates with the Document Review Project Manager and Second Tier document review

team as it deems appropriate.

B001

Final privilege review is driven by search and accurate training on “privilege” and “attorney

work product” for any given legal event, and the use of “further review” tags for documents that

needed further appraisal by more senior counsel. The tag “potentially privileged” is available

throughout the review. Such documents are re-batched with documents identified by search and

query for privilege review.

5) Three tier concurrent review, where the first tier moves forward to the second and the

Privilege review is driven as a separate event.

Many of our processes have been adopted as “best-practices” by other law firms that have

interacted with BZresources/BartkoZankel.

-12-

Over the last 7 years, BZr has undertaken document reviews on behalf of BartkoZankel and other

law firms and has performed on time and under budget in all of them. The more significant of

these reviews have made use of our facility in the Philippines. BZr has supervised each stage of

the eDiscovery process, from collection through review in all of these events, and

BZresources/BartkoZankel has never been subject to sanctions of any kind in regard to

eDiscovery.

While BZr has great faith in the quality of our Investigatory Document Review, advising our

clients in the negotiation of appropriate “clawback” agreements with the opposing side is a pre-

requisite to the work we do, as the sheer volume associated with discovery today precludes 100%

accuracy in production.

BZr firmly believes that an active and involved representative of the trial team is a

pre-requisite to effective document review and analysis.

BZr does not believe it is desirable for the trial team representative to rotate, as

this interjects an uncertainly effect into responses to questions from the document

review team.

BZr is certain that document review teams must be adequately instructed to

enable success.

BZr is certain that a precise decision log must be maintained and kept available to

the review team throughout the document review.

BZr attributes its success during investigatory document review and analysis to maintaining a

close and stable liaison relationship between client, counsel, and the PM of the document review;

the generation and regular maintenance of the document review decision, redaction and privilege

logs; and the prompt resolution of questions from the document review team.

BZresources has been providing effective trial tested management of eDiscovery and

investigatory high volume document reviews since 2005, and we would be happy to write a

formal proposal for any specific event.

-13-

The use of search to drive the review of “standard” files

The exclusion of non-relevant documents through search is integral to achieving accurate

tagging. This is where the reasonable fear that something relevant will be excluded and not

reviewed is generated. We exclude with caution, and in consultation with the Trial Team. We

rely on the Trial Team to direct the proportionality of the event, as a higher level of caution is

equivalent to greater expense.

Certain actions can be applied across all reviews, but it must be remembered that all reviews are

unique investigatory hunting expeditions. Targeted searches across the total document pool must

be used to folder and batch queries for distribution to the queues of individual reviewers.

We separate “standard” and “exception” files, “exception” files are foldered and set aside as they

require more complex processing (see next section for “exception”). We initially process only

the standard email and efiles. Inside the Relativity database, we then run our initial key word

searches as we are sure that each document is 100% searchable. We batch and folder the

resulting documents, run an index of the words in the documents contained in each folder and

then provide counsel a list of key words "by rank". We use data analysts familiar with regular

expression searches to speed this process.

Searches of the top 5 key words (by rank) in each folder become "mini-reviews", and if the

results are responsive to the production order, become key word recommendations to counsel.

The Trial Team is thus equipped to negotiate keyword search terms with opposing counsel based

on a preferred list that is the outcome of the iterative occurrence of words in the database

modified by counsel‟s own subjective understanding of the case and its issues. Counsel queries

regarding potential relevant keywords are run across the database as requested.

Cursory relevance and privilege are driven by search. The search terms developed in

conjunction with the trial team are first run against the standard files, folders generated out of

these queries are then batched to be loaded into individual reviewer queues for visual review,

coding of issue tags, and confirmation of relevance, privilege, and the identification of “hot”

documents.

Dealing with “exceptions” in processing

Because “e‟processing” struggles with:

Password protected files

PDFs that have not been OCR‟d

JPEG, TIFF with no text

Excel (tabs cannot be text searched)

PPT files (headers and footers of PPT in various versions are not text searchable—i.e., if

“attorney client privilege”, or “confidential” were to be in the header or footer of many

-14-

versions, they could only be identified by a human reviewer looking at them, as a text

search would miss the image “confidential” et al.)

"Exception" files are files, where standard e'processing tools cannot extract searchable metadata

and/or searchable text. We treat these “exception” files differently than the “standard”, easily

processed ESI (PST files, Word, etc.) which travel a simpler route to becoming fully searchable.

"Exception" documents which have been separately foldered take longer and are more expensive

to process. Password protected files will require special software to crack the password. We

perform visual reviews of every PPT in the collection (a slow and costly process, but one which

ensures that privileged documents are not produced—managing costs of this nature is one of the

reasons we developed our facility in the Philippines) as the text is not searchable. We have also

found ourselves thankful to have visually reviewed the page tabs in Excel spreadsheets, as it is

not possible to text search Excel page tabs, and we know from experience that they can be titled

with names on the privilege list.

Our productions are by custodian and based on the ratio of exception to standard files (i.e., so

that a CD or DVD of nothing but exceptions does not arrive and raise red flags just by being

what it is—looking like an exception).

We always urge the Trial Team to negotiate the production of “exceptions” with the other side.

This can prove more or less fruitful depending on the significance of the event, but in instances

where “exceptions” can be shown to be largely inconsequential through sampling and production

in native, it can be a significant cost control.

1) Process only the standard email and efiles and "folder" exception files.

2) Run initial key word searches across the "standard" email and efiles that are now 100%

searchable.

3) Batch and folder the resulting documents, run an index of all the words in the documents

contained in the folders, and provide a list of key words "by rank".

4) Run searches of the top 5 key words by rank, and perform "mini-reviews". If the results

are responsive to the production order, make those key word recommendations to

counsel. (This variable can be expanded, although the larger it becomes, the less

significant the impact for sorting.)

5) “Exception" documents take longer and are more expensive to process. Password

protected files oftentimes require special software to crack the password and depending

on the litigation, we will perform manual reviews on every PPT in the collection, as well

as Excel page tabs (slow and costly, but ensures that privileged documents are not

produced).

-15-

1) Keyword searches of privilege names across database.

2) Foldering and manually reviewing "exception" documents.

3) Using software that will provide us a dictionary of words in sub-setted documents. Our

standard is to identify the top 5 key words contained in documents that were tagged for

privilege and have our Privilege Reviewers manually review them.

4) The use of Philippine reviewers to perform many of these „visual‟ tasks enables our data

analysts to perform dynamic searches and promote those outcomes to the queues of

reviewers specializing in Privilege (or Issues), while remaining within the review

budget.

5) We use a final Privilege review team to finalize privilege tags and generate the privilege

log. This allows us to pay attention to the issue of contextual privilege.

1) The use of a concurrent review where examples of potentially “hot” documents selected

by the trial team are provided during reviewer instruction, and are refined through a

positive feedback loop during the ongoing review.

2) Adequate training of the review team, along with training updates as the review is

refined.

3) As “hot” issues are defined, targeted searches across the entire database to create more

refined queues.

4) As “hot” documents are tagged and forwarded to the trial team, searches are made based

on the trial teams thoughts about the document they have just seen, and any potentially

related ones they may hope to find.

5) Periodic collaborative meetings involving the Project Manager and a key member of the

Trial Team are extremely useful in refining this process as the overall trial themes evolve.

-16-

Document Review Security:

BartkoZankel has effectively used a variety of security protocols during eDiscovery. Security,

particularly electronic security, is an active and changing field where appropriate measures must

be taken in relation to actual and perceived risk. Appropriate security measures are the outcome

of full and informed discussions between the firm and its clients in regard to known or potential

threats.

Transfers of ESI to the firm and from the firm to hosting facilities are logged, and transfers made

on CD/DVD, hard drives, and by FTP transfer are encrypted. All CD/DVD, hard drives, thumb

drives, and other media are stored in a locked facility accessible only by authorized personnel.

Staff in the law firm sign project related confidentiality agreements beyond their standard

employee confidentiality agreement.

Security at BartkoZankel‟s offshore review facility:

1) The Philippine Center for Population Development (PCPD) compound: The entrance to the

compound is staffed by a sentry enforcing a no sticker- no entry policy. Those without the

PCPD sticker on their vehicles are required to leave their driver's license. There is a security

desk in the lobby of the building where visitors are required to leave their identification cards

and are issued a visitor's pass before entering the building. The compound is also staffed by

roving guards.

2) Main entrance to Philippine Interactive Audiotext Services, Inc. (PIASI): This is staffed by a

guard who signs in all entrants to PIASI (employees, visitors, etc). For Document Review

Projects, a log sheet is prepared before the project begins. The log sheet is a list of each

reviewer assigned to each particular Review project and the shift to which he/she is assigned.

Upon entry, each reviewer registers attendance by signing alongside his/her pre-typed name on

the log sheet. The guard indicates time of arrival based on a clearly visible clock hanging beside

the security area. This procedure is a manual check that applies to all reviewers on a daily basis.

3) Review Facility Entrance: There is a door access system in place. Only designated personnel

have access to this area. The system is able to identify those who enter the facility as well as the

time they enter. For Document Review Projects, a passkey system allowing only pre-

registered reviewers/managers to enter and have access to specific areas can be activated,

augmenting the standard door access system.

4) The Review Area: The current review area is an enclosed and separate space within the PCPD

building with its own doorway entrance and hallway passage. The dedicated and secure space

can be expanded as required.

5) Cellphones and Bags: There is a locker cabinet in the hallway passage outside the Review

Room that serves as a depository for cell phones, bags, etc of those who enter the facility. As

-17-

added security, GSM/CP signal jammers are in place in the facility and can be activated should

this be desired.

6) Closed Circuit Television in the Review Area: Cameras are focused on strategic areas --- in

the main entrance where the door access system is located, in the passage hallway where the

locker cabinet is located and inside the Review Room where the reviewers are stationed. The

CCTV has a recorder and is motion-activated. Currently, the CCTV recordings are stored for

one week. This can be adjusted subject to client request and company operational policies. A

regularly scheduled security review of the CCTV can be established as a standard policy specific

to any Review related activities.

7) Desktop Security Measures: Should the client require a policy that will automatically lock the

user‟s desktop at a specific time interval, such a policy can be activated. In addition, an audit

trail can be established in the Active Directory Services of the domain. However, it is important

to determine the extent of auditing, as the extent can affect other PC based resources.

-18-

Hosting for document review and production:

In the matters mentioned in the case studies, processing, culling, and hosting for review was

done per our instructions by LDiscovery on their secure network which services law firms,

corporations, and government contracts. Relativity with Equivio plug-ins for email threading

and de-duplication was chosen as the document review software or “tool”. Equivio has recently

come out with a “predictive coding” plug in for Relativity that was not available at the time of

any of the matters previously mentioned.

There are several vendors who maintain ISO certification for their hosting facilities.