eDiscovery Definition Confusion is Common but Unnecessary
November 20, 2012
Confusion over eDiscovery practices is common, even when turning to those that are supposed “experts” in the field. According to the post “Many Practitioners ‘Dazed and Confused’ Over Electronic Discovery Definitions” on the Clearwell Systems eDiscovery blog, numerous and various definitions on the term “electronic discovery” exist across the industry.
The blog post takes a look at the differences and missing factors in the definitions across the board:
“First, the EDRM definition focuses (as some might expect) on the tactics and practice of eDiscovery. This is a useful starting place, but they’ve missed out on other elements, like the overall market dynamics, which are discussed (again not surprisingly) by Gartner. Gartner likewise addresses how eDiscovery is accomplished, referencing the need for software and the escalating trend of taking eDiscovery tools in house. Sedona (coming from a legal theory perspective) relies heavily on the legal definition of ‘discovery,’ properly referencing its context in the legal process [...]”
If experts do not seem to agree on even a definition and key points, what else is inconsistent in the field? Costs, risks, and and uses are likely conflicting as well. We cannot help but notice a striking similarity to the confusion about business intelligence and Big Data analytics. What is not confused today?
Andrea Hayden, November 20, 2012