EMC Releases Next Version of EMC SourceOne eDiscovery – Kazeon

Delivering Accelerated Early Case Assessment, Improved Event-Driven Investigations and Cross Border eDiscovery

BERLIN – November 2, 2011—At Momentum, the EMC Information Intelligence Group’s global user conference, EMC Corporation (NYSE: EMC) today announced the immediate availability of EMC® SourceOne™ eDiscovery – Kazeon 4.6, an integrated solution that helps corporations, legal service providers, law firms and consultants more efficiently and cost effectively provide eDiscovery, litigation support and other event-driven investigations.

New Features:

·         Predefined and Customized Persona and Role Management: Predefined and customizable personas for IT administrator, legal/investigation liaison, and attorney/lead investigation, help these users accelerate time to deployment, and optimize case and investigation management.

·         Any Time, In-Place Investigation: Analyze, preserve and categorize information in-place at any time. Organizations with global operations can preserve and categorize electronically stored information (ESI) before collection to meet event-driven investigations in accordance with ordinances such as the European Privacy Act and Bribery Act.

·         Extensive Search and Analytics with Added International Language Support: Conduct ECA with extensive searching, analytics and first-pass review in French, Italian, German, Spanish, as well as English and Unicode.

·         Expanded Repository Connector Enhancements: Robust integration for EMC SourceOne Email Archive, Documentum, Avamar, IBM Lotus Domino Server, Symantec Enterprise Vault v9, Microsoft SharePoint Server, and Microsoft Exchange 2010 with CAS.

With this release, Kazeon delivers advanced ECA capabilities, simplified eDiscovery and expanded event driven investigations to address today’s global Information Governance challenges. The continuous growth and complexity of ESI, combined with the need to rapidly and accurately respond to discovery and investigation requirements, dictate a comprehensive approach to governance for organizations of all sizes.

According to the recent IDC Marketscape report titled, “Worldwide Standalone Early Case Assessment (ECA) Applications 2011 Vendor Analysis,” more corporate litigants will look to advances in analytics and business process technologies to realize process efficiencies and enhance eDiscovery strategy response planning as the average corpus sizes per matter continue to grow. As part of the report, IDC identified Kazeon as a leader for delivering a comprehensive solution for proactive and reactive eDiscovery, information security and privacy, corporate investigations, regulatory compliance, and data management issues.

Customer Quote:

Merrill Corporation, a leading provider of technology-enabled services for the financial, health care, real estate, legal and other corporate services, is an early adopter of the new Kazeon solution, and has integrated Kazeon with its suite of litigation support services for customers.

Mark Chardack, Senior Vice President of Operations for E-Discovery, Merrill Corporation

“The issues around cost and complexity of managing eDiscovery and event-driven investigations are becoming more critical every day as electronic data volumes continue to grow. Working with EMC and incorporating SourceOne eDiscovery – Kazeon into Merrill’s eDiscovery services offers dramatically reduced costs by pinpointing relevant files and data sources, and eliminating duplicate and unnecessary data. Kazeon’s early case assessment capability delivers robust analysis, review and reporting tools to reduce the risk, duration and cost of eDiscovery and investigations. The use of Kazeon aids compliance and information management and provides relevant ESI quickly, accurately and cost-effectively.”

EMC Quote:

Jeff Bettencourt, Vice President and General Manager of Information Governance for the Information Intelligence Group division of EMC

“Responding to event-driven investigations like eDiscovery, eDisclosure, litigation, compliance, and internal or regulatory investigations in a quick, cost effective manner, coupled with various global legal and regulatory standards, requires a need for an integrated eDiscovery solution more than ever before. With the new Kazeon 4.6 release, organizations can effectively manage information and quickly gain visibility and control over the investigation process while balancing complex laws and regulations, controlling costs and reducing overall risk and exposure.”

Additional Resources:

·         Learn more about EMC SourceOne eDiscovery - Kazeon

• Read the Kazeon data sheet
• Learn more about the EMC SourceOne File Intelligence
• Stay connected with Momentum on Facebook, YouTube, and LinkedIn
• Follow the @EMC_Momentum account and join the #mmtm11 conversation on Twitter.

·         Join the EMC SourceOne communities on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, SlideShare, EMC SourceOne Insider Blog, and the EMC Community Network

About EMC

 EMC Corporation is a global leader in enabling businesses and service providers to transform their operations and deliver IT as a service. Fundamental to this transformation is cloud computing. Through innovative products and services, EMC accelerates the journey to cloud computing, helping IT departments to store, manage, protect and analyze their most valuable asset — information — in a more agile, trusted and cost-efficient way. Additional information about EMC can be found at www.EMC.com.

 Discover More!!!!

William E. O'Neil, Jr., Esq., EMC eDiscovery expert

Part III

Faster, better, cheaper was the mantra at NASA as it set goals to improve quality, efficiency and better manage costs after several setbacks…it was a way to set goals and measure success from a “top down” approach of looking at it from all perspectives and seeking to better quantify risks & rewards in various programs…expect quality, but demand efficiency!!!

The Legal Profile:

An often overlooked link between the IT footprint and the FRCP is the notion of “source  mapping” or “mapping of sources” for the Rule 26f “Meet & Confer Conference” where the parties need to discuss & disclose potentially responsive ESI by “category or type”…if the organization understands what systems and repositories contain potentially responsive information, that ESI can be managed appropriately for the matter at hand and as an indicator as a source for future eDiscovery…most organizations have certain types of legal & regulatory challenges like employment, Intellectual property or other types of litigation and key regulatory issues which form a pattern of a “Profile”.

If these systems and applications are identified or “mapped” a categorization & classification of systems, data & ESI can be developed and used as an early assessment tool and a strategic tool to ensure proper preservation of ESI and notification of potential custodians.

Put another way, employment cases and Intellectual Property cases may share some common sources of ESI (email, file shares, collaborative spaces), but typically also have systems & repositories for business information related to the particular business function that is subject of the legal inquiry.  It is rare that all systems or applications would contain responsive ESI.

Here is an opportunity to move away from the “Hold All” order and develop a defensible response protocol for legal and regulatory matters and target responsive ESI and manage the non-responsive ESI according to standard business practices.  If you can’t find the handful of relevant ESI in the terabytes of data, then “retain all” may look like the “best option” in a bad situation.

Here is some hidden ROI:

Once Responsive ESI is identified, preserved & collected, it is a reasonable assumption that the non-responsive ESI is not subject to legal hold…but subject to ordinary lifecycle management (RM) or part of the organization’s GRC efforts within a sound Information Governance Program and only retained based on categorization & classification of information.

Leverage the opportunity to do some “house cleaing”…gain file visibility and perform file remediation…dispose of ESI that has outlived its useful life in a defensible, scalable manner.

Understanding all these different elements of the People, Process & Technology in your eDiscovery process is the key to controlling costs & mitigating risks.

If you would like to discuss this topic further…please give me a call or send an email @ ted.oneil at emc.com.

Discover More

William E. O'Neil, Jr., Esq., eDiscovery expert

Part I

Faster, better, cheaper was the mantra at NASA as it set goals to improve quality, efficiency and better manage costs after several setbacks…it was a way to set goals and measure success from a “top down” approach of looking at it from all perspectives and seeking to better quantify risks & rewards in various programs…expect quality, but demand efficiency!!!

Faster, better, cheaper was clear theme from LegalTech 2011…good Information Governance makes good business sense!

The hidden Return On Investment in eDiscovery lies in understanding the entire spend…not just the obvious third party costs and understanding and quantifying risks in the current process.

I have been working with several clients in developing business cases and ROI models to frame the various challenges and drive strategic initiatives.  The key to success is having developed a “base-line” understanding of the current process & identifying all key players.  The nature of eDiscovery tends to affect IT, RM, the Business and of course, Legal.

As “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”…all parts the organization affected by the process sees this from a different perspective should be included in the dialogue.

Key drivers in these initiatives is cost take-out and optimization of eDiscovery & regulatory compliance processes.  Understanding the current state of the process, people involved, key processes & technology to get visibility & control of the process…this is typically an evolution over time and requires a continued commitment to total quality management.

Best Practices that cut across the broad theme of Faster, better, cheaper:

• Identify all the “stakeholders” & process owners
• Identify all “Consumers” of ESI
• Define cost of current process
• Understand the organization’s “Legal Profile”
• Form cross-functional team to drive change

Understanding all these different elements of the People, Process & Technology in your eDiscovery process is the key to controlling costs & mitigating risks.

If you would like to discuss this topic further…please give me a call or send an email @ ted.oneil at emc.com.

Discover More

Pardon the eDiscovery (CLE Credit)

Time: 4:00 – 5:00 pm ET

Room: Concourse Level Room F

This McLaughlin Group style, fast-paced, round table type session will tackle ten of the top eDiscovery challenges from three very different perspectives:  inside counsel, outside counsel, and an eDiscovery consultant.  With just a minute to spend on each topic, you can be sure to get a focused, opinionated perspective on each of these hot eDiscovery issues!

Speakers:

James D. Shook, Esq., Director eDiscovery & Compliance Legal Team EMC

Martin Tully, Esq., Litigation partner, Katten Muchin Rosenman

J. David Morris, EMC moderator

R.S.V.P. today, as space is limited.

The Original – eDiscovery Turf Wars: Legal v. IT (CLE Credit Available)

Time: 1:30 – 2:30 pm ET

Room: Concourse Level Room F

The most challenging issue in eDiscovery has been and continues to be the knowledge gap between Legal and Information Technology professionals.  Misunderstandings surrounding legal obligations and technical capabilities are often at the heart of matters.  Our panelists have  “Top 5 Legal mistakes that result in Sanctions,” the “Top 5 IT mistakes that can sink your case,” and “How Legal and IT can work together to strengthen your case.”

Speakers:

James D. Shook, Esq., Director eDiscovery & Compliance Legal Team EMC

Ian Redpath, Esq., co-author of e-Discovery for Dummies

Dr. Linda Volonino, co-author of e-Discovery for Dummies

George Socha, Esq., Socha Consulting

Richard Vestuto, Esq.,  Vice President – Client Advisory Services – Merrill

J. David Morris, EMC moderator

R.S.V.P. today, as space is limited.

SharePoint: A catalyst for Information Governance and eDiscovery evidence repository

Time: 12:00 – 12:45 pm ET

Room: Concourse Level Room F

We’ve gotten to a point where every organization sees the value in a solid information governance plan, taking into account things like retention, compliance, and eDiscovery. But even with all of these plans we still have groups and individuals saving vital business content outside of the data center. This has been a primary challenge for IT, until now. With SharePoint and its ability to connect end-users and content, with the data center, there is hope.  In this session we will examine how “The exponential growth of information has affected the data center,” “What information governance requirements you need to consider when deploying SharePoint,” and “How combined EMC Information governance solutions and Microsoft SharePoint can help get your information house in order”

Speaker:

Dave Martin, EMC Principal Product Marketing Manager SharePoint

R.S.V.P. today, as space is limited.

Heidi Maher, Esq., eDiscovery Expert

To those of us in the eDiscovery field, the EDRM diagram appears straightforward.  However, to the legal practitioners who are getting acquainted with it for the first time, the “Information Management” node seems so overwhelming that they go no further.  The explanation of that node on EDRM.net[1] is good but gives no functional pointers on how to actually put together a plan.  I typically tell organizations that the best way to get started is to divide up the types of data you have into the following four categories:

1. Managed Unstructured Content – collaboration and content management platforms (Documentum, SharePoint, FileNet, etc) and custom platforms
2. Structured Content – databases
3. Fixed Content – physical and paper records, legacy systems and email archives
4. Unstructured Content – laptops and desktops and network fileshares

For each of the categories, think of how you will classify and (if necessary) archive the data, enforce polices against it and dispose of it when it no longer meets any business or legal value.

The easiest data to manage, not surprisingly, is the data that sits in collaboration and content management platforms.  They have built in management tools that facilitate classification of documents according to value, have internal indexing and searching mechanisms, and can fully dispose of data when it has reached the end of its lifecycle.  If organizations were able to put all their data into these types of platforms, the information management step would be a simple one.  However, most organizations likely have the three other types of data to deal with also.

Structured content is typically data that is shared among many people and is stored in critical database systems, such as financial accounting, human resources and manufacturing.  These systems maintain the data in a very formal, structured manner like an electronic filing system.  Since everything is already catalogued, there is no further need to do so.  To access and search from a database, you will most likely need a report writer or report generation program, the most popular of which is Crystal Reports.  This type of program allows you to enter, organize and select data to be put into a usable format.   However, the critical issue with databases is that most of the time, organizations are loath to delete anything out of them as they house important business critical data, so data is often kept in perpetuity or until the database is retired.

Fixed content like legacy email systems, boxes of paper documents, and orphaned SharePoint sites will need to be cataloged for their contents in order to determine value, age and availability for final disposition. Email archives allow for disposition according to age of data and most have good search tools to allow access for eDiscovery.  Emails not in an archive that are simply on an email server should not be treated like fixed content.  Since email is the most requested type of data in eDiscovery, un-archived email should be handled as described in the category below.

Unstructured content is the most difficult to manage.  Today’s knowledge workers are constantly creating information on their own hard drives, putting new documents on shared drives or in an organization without an email archive, creating emails on an email server. There is no natural classification of this type of content; and without an archive for the email or an enterprise indexing tool, there is no automated way to enforce any policies against it or find relevant material for eDiscovery.  In order to get your information house in order, unstructured content is where you should put most of your time and focus.  The key to managing unstructured information is to develop a classification methodology based on one or more informational attributes (e.g. based on age, custodian, location, file types) that superimpose order based on subject(s) relevant to a legal matter. With unstructured content’s volume and growth, organizations often turn to eDiscovery software suites to index, automate and codify the classification methodology for large litigation matters. If you choose not to classify, you at least need to have a plan for intelligent discovery against unstructured content before a litigating event occurs to avoid potential sanctions.  Most importantly, determine when and how you will expunge any unstructured content that has met the end of its lifecycle. Without a plan, you will always be on the reactive versus the proactive side of the EDRM model, which is the most risky, as well as the most expensive path.

Discover More

James D. Shook, Esq., CIPP EMC eDiscovery Expert

by James D. Shook, Esq.

This is the time of year when many make predictions for 2011.  But while we try to look forward, the reality is that as an industry, we have not yet conquered our eDiscovery challenges from 2010 – or even 2009 or earlier!  In the spirit of the season and with a nod to Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, I decided to take a Scrooge-based approach to eDiscovery.  Without further ado, I present the ghosts of eDiscovery Past, Present and Future.

eDiscovery Past

In the early days of eDiscovery, even before the amendments to the FRCP in December 2006, we all made plenty of mistakes as we learned about this challenging new area.  Many of our problems resulted from collecting and preserving electronically stored information (ESI) from backup tapes; artificially segmenting the eDiscovery process into three stages known informally as “collect stuff”, “throw stuff over the wall” and “review stuff”; and pretending that eDiscovery either was a passing fad, or just could not be as difficult as we had heard.

While the list of mistakes and challenges from the past is virtually limitless (see Ralph Losey’s recent blog entry on this issue), many of these mistakes really boiled down to a few fundamental issues:  a lack of coordination and communication between Legal and IT (and Records Management or “RM”); and a lack of basic knowledge on IT systems from people working in legal roles.

If these ghosts of eDiscovery past continue to plague you, next year resolve to:

• Have your legal team learn at least the basics about your IT infrastructure;
• Insure that Legal, IT (and RM) coordinate, communicate and interact on a regular basis; and
• Have a basic plan, prepared in advance, for what to do when eDiscovery hits.

eDiscovery Present

Over the last year, we continued to struggle with the concept of when sanctions should be awarded for eDiscovery blunders, and how we should determine the severity of those sanctions.  In fact, these are such difficult issues that there is currently disagreement even within the same jurisdiction (compare Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan, et al. v. Banc of America Securities, et al., 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010) (Amended Order) with Orbit One Commc’ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 2010 WL 4615547 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2010)).

But there were several other trends that rang through loud and clear.  One of the clearest trends is that there is significant risk in relying upon employees to preserve and collect their own data for eDiscovery.  (See our “Weekend At Bernie’s” post).  While there is still no absolute prohibition, the problem with “custodian-based eDiscovery” is that employees can be self-interested or uninterested in a case, making it risky to assume that they will do what they are asked.  Even for those who are sufficiently motivated, many will still fail because they are under-educated on both legal and IT issues.  This makes it exceptionally difficult for them to determine what ESI should be retained as relevant to a case, and how to properly find and preserve that ESI.

Another clear trend is that unintentional – and even seemingly minor and understandable—eDiscovery blunders can cascade into prejudicing a case and result in severe sanctions.  (See Harkabi v. Sandisk Corp., 08 Civ. 8203 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug, 23, 2010).

A trend that has been around for a while, but seems to finally be gaining momentum, is enforcing the point that litigation holds do not begin upon receipt of the first Request For Production of Documents, or even upon being served with a Complaint.  Instead, the hold duty attaches when one can reasonably anticipate litigation, which typically occurs before the data of service (and for plaintiffs, will certainly occur before filing the Complaint).  Courts are beginning to take a closer look at when a party’s preservation process actually began, so companies need to get legal informed about litigation threats so that decisions on holds can be made at the right time.

If these ghosts have the chance of haunting you, next year resolve to:

• Rely more upon your eDiscovery team of investigators and counsel, and arm them with useful technologies to complete their work.  Merely hoping that your employees are handling the preservation and collection of critical ESI is no longer a viable option;

• Review your eDiscovery processes to insure that litigation holds are integrated into your business processes.  This will insure that holds can be recognized at the appropriate time and not just after litigation has already commenced.

eDiscovery Future

There are two main roads that the ghost of eDiscovery Future can take.  The first is the obvious road of emerging and future technologies.  For 2011, emerging issues will clearly include the Cloud and social media technologies such as Facebook and Twitter, and we will certainly see some new technologies that we have not yet even worried about.

The second road in the future is more sinister, and relates to issues that we should already be aware of but have failed to adequately address because they have not yet risen to the right level.  These issues are actually riskier because we should be prepared, and mistakes with these technologies may not be viewed in a forgiving light because we should know better.  As a few examples, this group would include legal issues around international data privacy, data stored in Sharepoint repositories, and structured databases.

It is difficult to predict what you should do about the ghosts of eDiscovery Future, but consider a few possible resolutions for the new year:

• At minimum, update your ESI Map to include basic information about data that may be outside your firewall (such as outsourced Email and other Cloud technologies, Facebook, Twitter, etc.);

• If you transact business outside the U.S., understand the basics of privacy law and determine whether and how they may impact you in normal litigation matters; and

• Subscribe to a publication that will keep you updated on the latest legal and technology developments (Law Technology News and its Daily Alert are terrific, free resources).

Good luck in 2011!

Quentin Archer, Partner - Hogan Lovells, London

Kazeon eDiscovery Best Practice Webinar Series

with Quentin Archer and James D. Shook with J. David Morris as moderator.

As businesses go global, legal complications have followed. Ignoring cross border legal obligations, privacy laws, and litigation discovery orders have had severe consequences for numerous companies, including sanctions in the millions of dollars/pounds.

How does today’’s General Counsel successfully navigate the global legal seas?

James D. Shook, Esq., EMC eDiscovery Expert

Discover in this Webinar:

• US Law and eDiscovery
• UK Law and eDisclosure
• Cross border Privacy Challenges
• How to protect your corporation in cross-border disputes?

Register Now!, as space is limited for this one time premium webinar.

J. David Morris, EMC SourceOne eDiscovery - Kazeon

Rakesh R Nair, EMC eDiscovery Manager

by Rakesh R. Nair

Having spent the better part of a decade designing Information Management & eDiscovery Solutions, I decided to write a blog to share some of my findings in this space.

This is my first post and if you are even remotely interested in Information Management for the Enterprise, then read on!

Unstructured Information

Corporations large and small create significant amount of data that include documents, presentations and email messages.  Most of this data is “unstructured”, i.e it resides on file shares and employee laptops/desktops.  Industry analysts like Gartner estimate that this unstructured information accounts for 80% of all corporate information and expect it grow at 60%  or more each year.

In the simplest terms, unstructured information is nothing but “unmanaged” information.  The file system on which this information resides typically is not monitored and the content is practically invisible to employees, auditors or corporate compliance officers. In an effort to provide a greater degree of visibility, control and management of this information to meet compliance reporting requirements and enhance it’s abilities and obligations to respond to corporate litigation, many organizations have implemented one or more technologies, each of which has advantages and disadvantages:

1.     Enterprise File Backup

Many companies attempt to solve the problem by creating regular backups of all the data on the network. These backups are saved to tapes, which are typically shipped and stored at a remote location for disaster recovery purposes. Backing up all data regardless of its business value is an inefficient use of time and resources, increases the cost of tape storage and decreases the likelihood of rapid single file recovery, which is the most-used aspect of file backup, thereby still leaving the problem of quickly identifying “responsive” data, unsolved.

2.     Enterprise Content Management

Enterprise Content Management (ECM) systems can effectively manage many types of content and can provide access and version control, both of which are effective aspects of information management. ECM systems also tend to have significant costs to setup and maintain. These systems typically require an organization to purchase server and user licenses, implement policies and processes for using the system, and train its users. Because of these costs, companies often limit their ECM implementations to specific areas of their business or types of data, such as documents that pertain to finance or HR. According to many analyst organizations, ECM systems are being used to manage approximately ten percent of today’s corporate information.

3.     Enterprise Search

Enterprise Search is an effective way to index and find documents or emails that contain certain keywords.   Most are easy to implement and mid-range enterprise implementations require only a modicum of regular maintenance.  Some organizations also deploy Enterprise Search for proactive litigation readiness i.e ability to quickly produce responsive information pertaining to a litigation or an investigation.

Unfortunately, most enterprise search engines are tuned to find all the documents that may contain a particular term, rather than a specific document that may be required by an auditor. It is left to the user to sift through the thousands of returned documents to find what he needs, which can be a time-consuming and costly exercise.  For example, many enterprise search engines do not provide the ability to look for sensitive and high risk Personal Identification Information (PII) like SSN, Drivers License etc or Payment Credit Industry (PCI) information like Credit Card within unstructured data.  Additionally, search engines are mostly lacking in providing the ability to manage or take actions on the indexed documents.  Furthermore, scalability of many Enterprise Search Engines is called into question when they are required to “proactively” index and search data in the order of Terabytes or Petabytes.

Discover the Full article