The skyrocketing cost of eDiscovery has made headlines recently with several court cases setting precedents in favor of supporting huge eDiscovery costs. For example, a January circuit court decision required the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight to spend $6 million (totaling 9 percent of its annual budget) to comply with a subpoena for electronic documents; and another recent district court ruling enforces preservation and production of metadata.
These rulings make taking control of eDiscovery costs more important than ever, and with many eDiscovery options available, corporate counsel and law firms are realizing that they can significantly reduce costs by bringing eDiscovery in-house.
But going in-house with eDiscovery cannot be over-complicated by having to fit technologies together that were never intended for the task of eDiscovery. Many “eDiscovery” solutions that vendors are selling include hard to manage and unnecessary processes, such as archiving, that are the result of vendors pushing legal features onto technology platforms that are inappropriate for what is needed. This adds unacceptable and unnecessary costs, weaker eDiscovery processes and a hard to manage infrastructure.