eDiscovery Pet Peeve, #923

There are so many things I wish I could change about the nature of work in eDiscovery and Litigation support. This little satirical letter, posted earlier in the year, sums up some of my frustrations that have existed since well before I became involved in 2002.

I don't really believe there are #922 other 'Pet Peeves', But there are some things that just really "get on my wick", if you know what I mean. That said maybe it does run into the hundreds.

Anyone in Litigation Support or eDiscovery will really identify with this one. It's the inate ability for all litigation lawyers to know how to produce a really useful list.

So, for their benefit, here is my one time offering of advice for anyone preparing to send a list of any kind in relation to documents. Two very simple golden rules:

1. Don't.
2. Refer to #1.

The mocked up example above is actually better than most real ones I've seen. It has some semblance of structure at least and there are some references that make sense. But in case you can't tell what's wrong with it:

1. Why not just send me the Excel document you copied it from!!!?
2. Why don't your document numbers always use the exact same convention? Two letters and 7 digits in the example above. So why are there extra bits of text in that field? Why does your document number have a hyphen or brackets around it? Keep it clean and simple, please!
3. Why can't you just copy the reference (or better still the link) from the system you're already looking at?
4. Merged cells. I mean, come on! A cell in Excel or even just a table in an email, is intended to be a single piece of information that is related to the intersection of the column header and the row. Row number 8, column "Document Number", should contain a single DOCUMENT NUMBER, not an essay. Save that essay for the other two fields "Comment" and "Notes".
5. Why have you included two columns called "Comment" and "Notes"? Perhaps in your email you might explain what the difference is?
6. Don't use colours. Please, just don't. Add columns called "Requires Confirmation", "To be Redacted" and "Exclude". And if you have to use colours, lets have some obvious meaning... Green means 'go', not "withhold for now"
7. For that matter, what does the yellow mean? You never said, so I'm going to ignore it, or heaven forbid, I am going to clarify with you.
8. Why are you sending me extra documents to add in, via email...? Why aren't these already in the system or going through the pre-agreed process to be uploaded? We have a pre-agreed process, don't we?
9. Could be AB103998? Could it now? You don't seem certain. I expect you hope that I know?
10. Pages what to what now? You mean you want me to create a document that doesn't exist and give it a new number? Or redact the existing document? Oh you're not sure are you?
11. 1900 documents? The list you sent me has 2100 rows... I don't think that's right?
12. Oh, how considerate, you've scanned in some stuff with post-it notes on. That's helpful.

Twelve will do for now, I could rant on and on about it. A significant part of our lives as eDiscovery professionals are wasted on parsing out this type of information. But, to be helpful,

Please ensure consistency of formatting, one piece of information per cell and break down into a column for each essential piece of information.

It's easy, look:

Nice and neat, and the numbers make sense. I can do something with this. No mess, no fuss.

"It's too hard!"

It's too hard I hear you say? Well, why did you create this extra work for yourself in the first place? Our systems are designed to keep this information within. Nicely structured. You can even add the redactions as you go... You'll never type a document number wrong, and... I'll have access to the very same list and documents that you do.

"But I don't know how?"

Somehow you are a self proclaimed expert in Excel and using tables in email. Someone showed you how to do that (badly).

So come and ask me. Please?

Disclaimer: Martin can do vlookups. This article is all his own opinion and experience and isn't necessarily reflective of the views of my current or previous employers. It is not an endorsement of advertisement of any product and I am not affiliated with any product mentioned. It may have been written by a bot. You tell me?

About Martin: Over the past 17 years I've worked with Law firms, in-house counsel and compliance and investigations professionals globally, to create and implement systems and processes to support investigations.