Really enjoyed reading this article by Kate Steele from Hill Dickinson looking into how documents captured by a search and seize order should be reviewed, especially where there are conflicting priorities from the opposing parties.
Both cases found in favour of the claimants and not being a lawyer I am not going to comment on the legal merits of either case. However, when it comes to the management of the data in cases such as these, the processes that need to be followed can be flexed to meet most circumstances.
These can involve applying different sets of keywords from different parties and then assessing the results and implementing different workflows. In addition, auto redaction tools can also be used to protect sensitive private information before documents are reviewed.
These are just two approaches that we often use in cases such as these, if you’re interested in learning more then please let me know.
In A -v- B; Hewlett Packard & Ors -v- Manchester Technology Data (Holdings) Ltd & Ors, the court was asked to consider who gets priority, the claimant or defendant, when it comes to inspecting and interrogating data collected under a search and seize order (SSO)...The court found in favour of both claimants and, as such, the claimants were to search the documents in priority to the defendants. In claim A, the court considered that the defendants’ interests were protected because a preliminary search to identify confidential and privileged documents would be carried out before the claimants’ overall review.