![]() Furthermore, this strategy may boost an organization’s competitive potential and decrease costly legal spend when discovery arises. A proactive approach to policy creates an opportunity to take control and plan for the unknown, reduce volume, lower costs, and mitigate risk associated with unclassified electronic records. Shabbily conducted discovery responses place an undue risk on the whole organization. Poor management of large data repositories can result in costly sanctions and increased long term organizational risk. Regardless of whether an organization is planning for information governance or discovery management, the design process is similar as is the intent. Currently, sophisticated organizations realize that implementing a robust information governance and strategic discovery management program is critical to their long-term business strategy, particularly in heavily-regulated and litigious industries. Beyond the critical importance of adequately responding to administrative hearings or litigation, these decisions concern some of your most critical business assets, your data. IT-driven decisions determine the path of data creation, management, storage and, ultimately, disposition. Susanna Blancke hopes that the worldwide discovery community will learn from each other and that that tools will become available which will rule out data protection concerns.While many still consider electronic discovery to be primarily a legal issue, in reality it is a critical business function as well. That may change, partly because of the global ambit of the GDPR, but partly also because US states – California with its California Consumer Privacy Act is the most advanced example – embrace principles similar to those in the GDPR. One of the differences in the EU is the importance of privacy concerns which have not hitherto been a big feature of US discovery. This has obvious advantages for budgets and for review speeds. Lawyers in Europe will be able to get in at a very high level. Susanna Blancke sees Europe as having the advantage of capitalising on a decade of serious eDiscovery development in the US resulting in highly-developed review tools. There are, of course, jurisdictional differences between eDiscovery projects – between the US and elsewhere and between the EU and the rest of the EU. There are certain things which machine translation will not get – there are examples, especially in Asian languages, where the position of the word in a sentence makes a difference to the meaning. Technology is getting better, but it is not eliminating the role of humans. The main development, she said, was the development of machine translation which would eventually mean that humans needed only to look at the final output for quality control purposes and not at all the documents in the dataset. I asked Susanna Blancke what is the future of multi-language discovery. ![]() The staffing might therefore be completely different between two projects. They also need subject matter expertise – in finance or life science or whatever the case was about – with the language skills on top. ![]() It is not enough, Susanna Blancke said, merely to have skilled linguists.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |