Cut eDiscovery Costs with In-house Processing & Culling

With the growth of eDiscovery software, corporations now have the answer: In-House eDiscovery. Bringing eDiscovery in-house delivers significant savings in ediscovery costs and reduces over collection and inadvertent dissemination of confidential, privileged and intellectual property materials. In-house solutions have significant benefits, particularly as it relates to reducing the ediscovery cost incurred during processing and review. Comparing to the scenario described in figure 1 to the figure 2, a corporation can save up to a million dollars on just one case by doing most of the processing, early case assessment and review in-house. The majority of the savings result from:

• Performing processing and culling in-house rather than outsourcing it at $500/GB.
• Hosting the review data in-house rather than sending it out.
• Reducing the amount of data that needs to be reviewed (& hence the review costs) by culling out irrelevant data.  We have some customers that were able to reduce the review data set by 90+%.

With in-house eDiscovery software, Figure 2 outlines the ediscovery cost saving delivered:

Kazeon offers a complete eDiscovery solution both in terms of eDiscovery workflow and also in terms of data reach. The Kazeon solution can address ESI stored in multiple locations and formats including laptops, desktops, e-mail servers, e-mail archives, PST files, file servers, document management repositories, etc. Using the Kazeon eDiscovery workflow, organizations can quickly cull-down the amount of documents that need to be reviewed to very small and manageable set thereby experiencing huge reductions in e Discovery costs.

For more information on how In-House eDiscovery can help your corporation experience significant reduction in e Discovery costs, call a eDiscovery specialist today at 877.Kazeon1.

The construction of the return on investment models leverage known average figures of operational and capital expenditures across numerous eDiscovery deployments.  As with any financial model, individual results may vary depending on a company’s variations in operational and capital expense, as well as recognition policies.