Millnet was approached by a large multi-national company regarding an upcoming litigation. Our ediscovery consultants worked with the company’s in-house legal team and their external lawyers to understand the details of the case and what the lawyers were trying to achieve. We scoped out what data sources were likely to be relevant and how best to collect the data in a forensically sound manner whilst minimising costs and organisational disruption, and ensuring unnecessary data was not collected.
This case study demonstrates Millnet’s end to end capability when it comes to paper and electronic document collection and review. Millnet was recently approached by a client who suspected fraud relating to distribution of goods and was asked to prepare simultaneous forensic collection of electronic evidence (stored on laptops, phones and iPads) and paper documents across three different countries: Germany, Russia and Kazakhstan.
Millnet was engaged by a leading UK based law firm to process and subsequently host in Relativity its client’s emails. These emails comprised a number of mailbox extracts from a single custodian that had been collected and were to be reviewed as a part of a banking litigation claim. The matter involved a leading UK high street bank where it was alleged that an employee was operating fraudulently.
Millnet was tasked with managing e-discovery services for a civil litigation claim in the U.K. after the director of a financial services firm alleged that a business partner was withdrawing funds in excess of what was permitted by their partnership agreement. Upon review of the case, it was determined that a majority of the evidence surrounding this case consisted of emails and associated documents exchanged during the time the funds were drawn.
The dispute related to drawings made by a partner that were alleged to be in excess of what was permitted by the partnership agreement. The bulk of the evidence consisted of email traffic between the parties and associated documents evidencing the conduct of the parties during the period of time the drawings were taken. Sufficient keywords could not be agreed between the parties due to the lack of obvious specific keywords. Therefore keyword searching was an inefficient means to identify relevant documents – the majority of the documents containing the keywords were not materially relevant to the issues in dispute. It was felt that Assisted Review had the potential to save a substantial amount of time and money if it could be used to help identify the material that was directly relevant to the issues in dispute.