E-discovery costs can be reduced by making sensible strategic discovery decisions on the very first day the matter comes in and then leveraging technology to improve efficiencies. It is regarding reliable technical options one can implement to improve efficiencies and reduce the cost.

Removing the duplicates across custodians so that only one copy of each document or email is reviewed for responsiveness, confidentiality, or privilege reduces the volume.

Even further saving can be realized by using technology to present all the emails in a conversation or thread to reviewers at the same time. Most people set up their email so that when they reply to or forward an email, the content of that earlier email is displayed at the bottom of the reply.   Having all of the related emails together at the time of review allows reviewers to read them more efficiently and make consistent, informed decisions.

The first reply could be either ignored completely or just cursorily examined to determine if for some reason the last email in the thread did not accurately reflect the contents of the earlier emails. Some email threading systems will perform that check. Evaluating the emails collectively provides extensive savings in the time required to complete the review and shows better results. The reviewing just the last email would cut the work and the review bill dramatically.

The survey of leading electronic discovery providers conducted by the E-Discovery Institute, a 501(c)(3) non-profit research organization, showed that consolidating emails by threads saved on average 36 percent beyond the savings achieved by deduping. (See “Report of Kershaw-Howie Survey of E-Discovery Providers Pertaining to Threading.”)

It is intreresting to note that not only does email threading reduce cost and speed processing, it also improves the quality of the review decisions, particularly privilege decisions. One of the potential dangers of email is that a recipient can forward otherwise privileged content to someone whose receipt of it could result in a waiver. It is easier to spot with email threading. Furthermore, grouping emails in threads helps assure that all of them are accorded the same treatment if warranted.

Many courts in USA require that a party listing an email as privileged make a privilege log entry for that email plus any of the earlier emails whose contents were included within that email. for better clarity if the reply to the initial reply was listed on the privilege log, there would have to be three entries: one for that email itself, one for the first reply, and another entry for the initiating email, because both the initiating and the first reply emails were included within that email. Having the technology to group emails by threads could reduce the complexity and burden of preparing such logs. (Of course, the best privilege log solution is to obtain a FRE 502 stipulation and protective order incorporating privilege logging by subject matter rather than by item at the very outset of the case.