8 Key Differences between eDiscovery and information governance

1. 8 Key Differences between eDiscovery and Information Governance Introduction Today, information governance ("IG") is everywhere. The biggest promoters of this concept seem to be the very parties that touted the benefits of Electronic Discovery("ED")a few years ago. Is Information Governance a new name for ED, or is something else going on? Information Governance is a new area of practice that includes some, but not all, elements of ED. The Information Governance policies, along with the ED, consists of several elements related to records management, compliance, security, and the management, storage, and use of corporate information. The goal of this article is to highlight eight main differences between practices, tools, and vendors in the two areas so that Information Governance and ED practitioners can make educated decisions in business practices and purchases. Main goal: Culling vs. Organization The main goal of any eDiscovery process is to remove(or "extract")documents from the collected set that are not relevant or useful to the goals of the litigation team. Typically, the command generates a document for the other party, so the tactical goal is to remove the document from the population that does not respond to the creation request and remove(or protect)the privileged document from disclosure. to the publisher. This selection process revolves around tools and practices that remove documents with increasingly precise distinctions. The most commonly known procedures are deNISTing1, date range filtering, keyword filtering, and predictive coding, in which a trained expert trains the system on which files to keep or select. Before documents are delivered (produced) to another party, lawyers review them for final approval, a step commonly called "Document Review." Document review is costly, time-consuming and arduous. It is the most costly step in almost all litigation preparations, and there is a great emphasis and incentive to reduce costs by excluding files whenever possible.

2. The primary goal of information governance is to organize a vast collection of documents, archives, and content distributed across the company. Unlike ED, IG does not primarily reduce information sets, but organizes them into logical categories and use cases. IG is systematic and undisciplined information coordination and control. A typical IG task sequence begins with an evaluation of the data/files/content that exists in your organization and where it can be found(or where/how it is stored). This task, called data mapping or inventory, covers various types of information, including paper files 2. Once mapped, the typical GI process covers data retention, legal retention, and other policies that dictate the storage, processing, and deletion of various types of information. There, the practices of IG are different. Some organizations will catalogue all content(existing and future). Others don't. Some apply rule-based automatic processing to manage that information, and others do it manually. Others do not have a formal GI process and simply store everything that future generations will inherit. 2.0 Timeframe eDiscovery is related to the specified litigation period. All litigation matters have a fixed start and end date for that claim, and documents or files outside that period are not part of the information collected. As far as ED is concerned, no out-of- window information exists. Future documents have no place in today's eDiscovery. In contrast, information governance is explicitly responsible for managing all time zones, especially future content. Many companies choose a start time to start their IG practices, but there is usually no end date. IG activity works forever. This very different concept of time has a significant impact on the tools, techniques and purposes of the activities carried out by the organization. In some ways, ED works in a disposable environment, while IG persists permanently. 3.0 Available Tools ED market will mark a 10-year maturity level next year. Today, there are cheap, easy-to-use ready-to-use tools that are readily available in most litigation support and legal departments. And if not, there are numerous vendors worldwide that offer the same tools(Nuix, Relativity, Clearwell, EnCase, etc.). There is little differentiation, the technology is proven and reliable. In fact, the whole process of how eDiscovery works is well documented in EDRM3. As such, common ED solution providers are closer to data dynamics than any other.

3. IG, on the other hand, is a new and developing field of practice with few tools and much more individualization in the service offerings. Tools and approaches for IG are not yet advanced or well understood. Solution providers often have consulting aspects that cover areas such as training, policy creation, technology or supplier selection, and implementation monitoring. Since the data and information are as different as the organization itself, the implementation of the IG in each organization is different. Strategy is not a tool, but the driving force of IG and a typical IG solution provider is a strategy consultant or counsellor. Starting Point: Collection vs. Intake eDiscovery starts when documents and files are collected from litigants, which is known to as "forensic collection." This process deliberately replicates the file in question, especially for the purpose of legal investigation. This second set of information is almost always present in the custom litigation database(often Relativity)and is outside the original content source. Information governance starts at the source point of the information set. The documents and files in question are routinely in use or in some kind of storage archive. The IG process typically takes advantage of the actual document of the enterprise, not the second copy. Since ED documents are a fixed set, there is no notion of continuous acquisition of documents once the demanded sets are obtained. IG documents are constantly newly created over time, and therefore they have an element of coordinated disclosure. That is, new documents and files created must be properly integrated into the existing IG universe. Examples of common admission techniques include custom email addresses (such as auto-transfer or auto-copy), drag-and-drop (Dropbox) capabilities, custom fax or email addresses, and automatic ftp or file synchronization for mobile devices. 5.0 Endpoint eDiscovery solutions are designed to be used for a measurable period of time, the discovery and proof parts of litigation. When the case is terminated, the eDiscovery solution is typically dismantled. The hosted document is deleted and the associated work output is deleted. With the added stress of winning lawsuits, most ED solutions are temporary, expensive, and not specifically optimized for continuous use. 6.0 Accuracy and Error Tolerance

4. In litigation matters, misclassification or simply missing documents can have serious consequences. Mistakes can create cost overruns, loss of privileges, recriminations or sanctions. In general, the solution to ED errors is to fix them at any cost. IG is quite resistant to errors. Mistakes are not only tolerated, they are expected and generally do not cause much damage. Typically, the solution is to leave the error intact or resolve it in a subsequent round of processing or upgrade. 7.0 Who pays? Budget Issues In eDiscovery, clients (litigants)pay for the management of data and information related to case issues. The cost is simply assessed as the sum of the costs associated with the discovery part of the lawsuit. In information governance, companies pay for their own data and information management. Because these systems are considered a form of overhead that lasts for years to come, they are typically treated as assets that have a depreciation value over several years after rigorous ROI calculations. 8.0 Where the solution is ED solutions are typically located in one of two locations: in the Litigation Support department(outside the attorney or inside the legal department) or in the vendor. Solutions often intentionally exist outside the corporate IT infrastructure and are hosted in some form(SaaS)in the cloud. Therefore, prices for these services tend to be transactional in nature, priced per GB or per manager. IG solutions are almost always behind corporate firewalls and often on-premises. It maps directly to IT infrastructure such as corporate document management systems(DMS), email servers, and these services tends to be license-driven, rather than transactional, priced monthly or yearly. Summary The two worlds of eDiscovery and information governance look similar on the surface, but they actually work very differently because they have different assumptions, processes, schedules, tools, expectations, and timeframes. To treat them interchangeably is to short-change one of them, putting litigation or corporate information at risk. Legal professionals or eDiscovery vendors would be wise to other file shares. Pricing for

5. set expectations accordingly based on the various plans and processes for ED and IG. Proteus Discovery Group, LLC Proteus Discovery Group, LLC is a technology-based provider of automated document management, eDiscovery analysis, information governance plan and legal review services for the legal, records management, and information governance markets. We provide data mining, analytics, document collection and visualization, and hosting solutions for businesses and government agencies as well. For more information on these topics and other information, visit the Proteus Discovery website and blog or contact us. tel:+13175593577. Source Url:https://sites.google.com/view/proteusdiscoverygroup/information- governance