7 ways to tame the eDiscovery
cost monster
Selecting the optimal review method for every scenario

Contents
Executive summary

3

Introduction

3

Six common scenarios for document review

4

Avoiding common mistakes that diminish review effectiveness4

Seven methods of document review

5Linear review

5

Rapid analytic investigative review (RAIR)

5

Fixed-fee RAIR

6RAIR for early data analysis (EDA)

6

Technology assisted review (TAR)

6

RAIR-enhanced TAR

6

Fixed-fee TAR

6

Selecting the optimal document review method for your caseThree optimization factors for review

6

Applying the optimization factors to the assess review methods

7

Example walkthrough7

Cost comparisons10

Review methods best suited for each scenario

11

Conclusion

7 ways to tame the eDiscovery cost monster

6

11

2/11

Executive summary
The term eDiscovery has traditionally been associated with document review for
production in litigation or in response to regulatory requests. Faced with rapid
digital transformation, legal practitioners now recognize the need to search,
retrieve, analyze, and categorize electronic data in many contexts beyond
traditional litigation and investigations. This includes subject rights requests (SRRs),
as well as data breach response and analysis.
Each document review scenario comes with different priorities, goals, timelines,
and risk factors. A one-size-fits-all approach cannot deliver the optimal legal andbusiness outcome in every scenario.
To truly control the eDiscovery “cost monster” and optimize the outcome of every
case requires a more modern, nuanced, and flexible approach. This paper reviews
common document review use cases and examines the key factors that make each
one unique. It then outlines common mistakes review teams make which diminish
review efficiency and effectiveness. Finally, the paper proposes a new way of
approaching eDiscovery—one that offers a more sophisticated analysis of needs
and requirements, and matches them to the optimal method of review.

Introduction
Document review has always been the most expensive and time-consuming phaseof the eDiscovery lifecycle—by far. A 2012 study by the RAND Corporation foundthat review typically consumed about 73 percent of all production costs.1
That study also noted that review costs are difficult to reduce significantly
when performing traditional linear review. Reasons cited included unlikeliness ofsignificant reduction in labor costs, that techniques for grouping documents would
probably not foster sufficiently dramatic improvements in review speed, and thathuman reviewers are “highly inconsistent.”
However, technology assisted review (TAR) methodologies then began to gain
traction. While TAR has become somewhat common, adoption has not been as
widespread as many predicted. Some have found the concept of machine learningassociated with TAR difficult to understand, others have found that it’s not suitablefor every document collection or every use case.
As a result, growth in the use of TAR for review has stagnated in recent years. As
reported by eDiscovery Today in its 2023 State of the Industry Report, only
29.2 percent of 364 respondents use predictive coding technologies andapproaches in all or most of their cases, while more than one third (35.4 percent) ofrespondents use it in very few or none of their cases. Those adoption numbers for
TAR have actually dropped when compared to the first year of the report in 2021.
The good news is that review methodologies have evolved to the point where they
can be combined or modified to provide numerous high-level methods of document
review. We'll look at seven in the context of six different review scenarios. Eachmethod has characteristics that make it suitable for specific review scenarios,
providing a level of granularity not previously available.

1 RAND Corporation, Where the Money Goes: Understanding Litigant Expenditures for Producing Electronic
Discovery. (2012)

7 ways to tame the eDiscovery cost monster

3/11

Six common scenarios for document review
Today, we see at least six common scenarios to which document review can beapplied. They include:• Litigation – outbound productions
Assessing documents for responsiveness and privilege to support outboundproductions is the most common scenario for document review.
• Litigation – inbound productions
Reviewing documents produced to you to understand the evidence and identify
gaps in production is also a traditional document review scenario.
• SRR data privacy review and reporting
GDPR in Europe, and tougher data privacy laws in other countries and selected
US states, have given individuals the right to request information on the ways
companies collect, process, and manage their personal data or information.
To respond to those Subject Right Requests (SRRs), organizations often must
conduct document reviews to identify documents where personal information of
the requesting party resides.
• Third-party subpoenas
Parties to a litigation are not always the only parties involved in production. Third
parties may receive subpoenas requesting documents responsive to the case as
well. While there are similarities between responding to litigation requests andresponding as a third-party, there are also differences in needs and workflows.
• Regulatory document requests
Document review can be necessary to respond to regulatory requests fromgovernment agencies, such as Hart–Scott–Rodino (HSR) Second Requests by
the FTC and/or DOJ to investigate potential antitrust considerations. Document
reviews to support HSR Second Requests require specialized workflows because
they typically involve large document collections and tight deadlines.
• Data breach response reviews
When an organization experiences a data breach, it’s imperative for them toidentify individuals who may have had their personal information compromised.
Data breach response reviews driven by mandatory breach notification
obligations also have tight deadlines, with a specific focus on identifying
personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI)
that may have been compromised, so their workflows reflect this unique focus.
Organizations need to address reviews in different ways that support
each scenario.

Avoiding common mistakes that diminish
review effectivenessTwo common mistakes many organizations make that negatively impact
document reviews:
Failure to embrace technology to streamline review
Many legal professionals continue to apply linear review methods despite theadvent of more efficient alternatives. The reasons vary from inability to understandhow TAR works and how it can be effectively applied to concerns that it will require
substantial negotiations over disclosures and protocols.

7 ways to tame the eDiscovery cost monster

4/11

That philosophy is no longer viable in many cases. Data in organizations has
skyrocketed over the years: a recent projection by Statista shows that global data
is predicted to rise from 2 zettabytes in 2010 to 181 zettabytes by 2025,2 which
equates to 181 trillion gigabytes! The amount data in organizations is doubling
every two years, on average.3 Manual linear review methods simply cannot keep
up with larger data volumes. Firms and managed review vendors need to embracetechnology to continue to provide valuable document review services to theirclients. If they do not, their competitors will.
Trying to fit every review project into the same methodology
Another common mistake is trying to fit every project into the same review
methodology. This is one of the biggest mistakes that advocates for TAR make—they try to apply TAR methods to document collections and review scenarios when
TAR is not the optimal approach. These failures can cause legal professionals toreject the use of TAR, even when it is the optimal approach. To optimize document
review, organizations must be flexible when it comes to choosing the method foreach project.

Seven methods of document review
At least seven methods can be applied to a review project, each appropriate for
specific document review scenarios.
Linear review
The term “linear review” applies to the document review method that involves“eyes-on” human review of every document in the set deemed to be potentially
responsive to the document request or every document deemed to be potentiallyprivileged in a privilege review.
While technology has advanced considerably over the years, linear review canstill be an appropriate method for certain document collections and in certain
circumstances, for example, review for selected outbound and inbound productions
in litigation. A certain amount of manual linear review is part of every review method
for tasks such as training algorithms or validating results.
Rapid analytic investigative review (RAIR)RAIR uses advanced analytics to locate characteristically similar sets of documentsthat can confidently be managed as a group for purposes of ultimate disposition(e.g., production).
The essence of RAIR is the aggregation of substantively similar documents (fromthe perspective of the ultimate decision) in such a way that the entire amalgamatedset can be subject to a single decision. RAIR will also typically be more efficientthan even modern technology-assisted reviews when it is not necessary to
independently review every document before it is produced.
In cases such as third-party subpoenas, HSR second requests, and SRR reviews,
it is often unnecessary for the review team to put eyes on every document being
produced. Additionally, cost and time pressures often necessitate an approach thatis more efficient than even the best TAR.
2 Statista, Volume of data/information created,
captured, copied, and consumed worldwide from2010 to 2020, with forecasts from 2021 to 2025.
(2023)
3 Medium, The amount of data in the world
doubles every two years. (2020)

7 ways to tame the eDiscovery cost monster

With RAIR, aggregation takes place much faster than an individual document
review and far fewer documents are reviewed with RAIR than any other technique,including continuous active learning TAR. Additionally, because it incorporates
sampling and recording throughout the entire process and validation, RAIR is highly
defensible if challenged.
5/11

Fixed-fee RAIR
Where budget certainty is the paramount concern, the RAIR team can conduct
RAIR on a fixed-fee basis to avoid any risk to the client of cost overruns after thereview begins.
RAIR for early data analysis (EDA)
In circumstances where it is necessary for the team to put eyes on most of the
documents, particularly responsive documents, RAIR methodology can be used as
an EDA tool to rapidly eliminate large swaths of documents that are not relevant.
The remaining smaller set is then sent for linear review. In a data breach response
review, for example, RAIR for EDA can dramatically reduce time, effort, and costs byquickly identifying documents that do not contain personal or sensitive data.
Technology assisted review (TAR)
TAR is a process of having computer software electronically classify or prioritize
documents based on input from expert reviewers to limit and expedite the overall
review of the document collection.
There are a variety of TAR protocols, the most common of which is continuous
active learning (CAL), where the learning process is continuous and integrated
into the review process. As reviewers code documents, the system continuallylearns and updates its understanding of what is most likely to be relevant, thereby
improving its suggestions over time. This approach is commonly referred to as TAR
2.0 and is the approach we’re discussing in this paper as the typical TAR method.
RAIR-enhanced TAR
A RAIR-enhanced TAR combines aspects of both approaches and is suitable forreview projects where there is a need to “jump start” the TAR process quickly forlarge-scale reviews. It is ideal where there is no requirement for cost certainty anda need to put “eyes-on” every document being produced.
Fixed-fee TAR
A fixed-fee TAR applies specific variations to achieve cost certainty.

Selecting the optimal document review method for your caseThree optimization factors for review
When it comes to optimizing review, there are three factors to consider:• TimeSome document review methods, such as RAIR, are optimized to meet aggressive
deadlines in review scenarios such as HSR Second Request or data breach
response reviews.
• CostIf cost certainty is a must, fixed-fee approaches must be considered; if that is nota requirement, other approaches may be more efficient and cost effective.
• RiskRisks of inadvertently producing documents that you don’t want to produce andrisks of having to defend your document review approach are examples of factors
to be considered.

7 ways to tame the eDiscovery cost monster

6/11

Applying the optimization factors to the assess
review methods
Some review methods that are optimized to meet deadlines may not be as costeffective or may increase risk. Fixed-fee methods may also increase risk andmay not be feasible with stricter deadlines. Selecting a review method thatmaximizes risk mitigation could be more expensive or time-consuming (or both)than other methods.
With a three-dimensional matrix of optimization factors in mind, here is how theseven document review methods could stack up.
Cost
Linear Review
Rapid Analytic
Investigative
Review (RAIR)
Fixed-Fee RAIR
Review
RAIR-Enhanced
TAR Review
Time

TAR Review
RAIR for earlydata analysis(EDA)
Fixed-Fee TAR
Review

Risk

Figure 1: Seven methods of document review across the three optimization factors
It is probably not surprising that linear review is typically the most time-consuming
and most expensive method. However, it may reduce some risks associatedwith methods where “eyes-on” review is not being applied to every document.
Conversely, RAIR may be the most efficient and cost-effective method, but risks
are increased, and there may be additional work necessary to defend that
review method.

Example walkthroughSo, how do you select the optimal method for your scenario?
Ask five simple questions.
Let’s walk through an example, using a simple review selection questionnaire toeliminate review method(s) with each question, leaving one at the end which is
optimal for the review scenario.
Do you need to put eyes on EVERY document in the collection?
Yes		

7 ways to tame the eDiscovery cost monster

No

7/11

Cost
Linear Review
Rapid Analytic
Investigative
Review (RAIR)
Fixed-Fee RAIR
Review
RAIR-Enhanced
TAR Review
Time

TAR Review
RAIR for earlydata analysis(EDA)
Fixed-Fee TAR
Review

Risk

Figure 2: Eliminate linear review if you don’t need to review every document
If not, you can safely eliminate linear review in most cases, because there are lessexpensive alternatives that do not impact the risk analysis. One down, six to go!
Do you need to put eyes on every document being produced?
Yes		

No
Cost

Rapid Analytic
Investigative
Review (RAIR)
Fixed-Fee RAIR
Review
RAIR-Enhanced
TAR Review
Time

TAR Review
RAIR for earlydata analysis(EDA)
Fixed-Fee TAR
Review

Risk

Figure 3: Eliminate RAIR and fixed-fee RAIR if you do need to put eyes on
every document
If you must put eyes on every produced document, you can eliminate RAIR and
fixed-fee RAIR, since they rely on bulk assessment. Four potential review methods
remain! Let’s add the third question.
Do you need to put eyes on every document coded non-responsive?
Yes		

7 ways to tame the eDiscovery cost monster

No

8/11

Cost

RAIR-Enhanced
TAR Review
Time

TAR Review
RAIR for earlydata analysis(EDA)
Fixed-Fee TAR
Review

Risk

Figure 4: Eliminate RAIR for EDA if you do need to put eyes on every document
coded non-responsive
If you also must put “eyes on” every document coded non-responsive, RAIR for EDA
isn’t the optimal method. Three review methods left! Let’s add the fourth question.
Do you need cost certainty?
Yes		

No
Cost

RAIR-Enhanced
TAR Review
Time

TAR Review

Fixed-Fee TAR
Review
Risk

Figure 5: Eliminate fixed-fee TAR if you don’t need cost certainty
If cost certainty isn’t necessary for your scenario, fixed-fee review options are not
optimal because they tend to cost more than a standard approach. We alreadyeliminated fixed-fee RAIR, now we can eliminate fixed-fee TAR. Let’s add the fifth
and final question.
Do you have more than 50,000 documents to review?
Yes		
7 ways to tame the eDiscovery cost monster

No
9/11

Cost

RAIR-Enhanced
TAR Review
Time

TAR Review

Risk

Figure 6: Eliminate TAR if you have more than 50K documents
While TAR can be an appropriate review method for large-scale document
collections, it is not necessarily optimal, given the other conditions.
A RAIR-enhanced TAR method would generally be the optimal method if: 1) you do
not need to put “eyes-on” every document in the collection, 2) you do need to put“eyes-on” every document being produced, 3) you do need to put “eyes-on” every
document coded non-responsive, 4) you do not require cost-certainty, and5) you have more than 50,000 documents to review.
Hopefully, this example illustrates how answering five simple questions can enable
your team to quickly identify the optimal review method for any scenario!

Cost comparisonsGenerally, each of the seven methods of review has a different level of costs
associated with it. As noted above, manual linear review is the most expensive.
If you represent each of the other six review methods as a percentage of the costassociated with linear review, the figure below represents what typical costs look
like for a typical review project with one million documents and 15 percent richnessof responsive documents.
Rapid Analytic Investigative Review (RAIR)

25%

Fixed-Fee Rapid Analytic Investigative Review(Fixed-Fee RAIR)27%

RAIR-Enhanced Technology-Assisted Review(RAIR-Enhanced TAR)

39%
47%

Technology-Assisted Review (TAR)

Fixed-Fee Technology-Assisted Review(Fixed-Fee TAR)

52%

Rapid Analytic Investigative Review (RAIR)
for EDA81%

Linear Review

100%
0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure 7: Seven methods cost comparison(Relative costs based on 1M documents with 15% richness)
As you can see, the RAIR method can cost as little as 25 percent of a typical linear
review method (in a case with one million documents and 15% richness) illustrating
its cost-effectiveness!

7 ways to tame the eDiscovery cost monster

10/11

Review methods best suited for each scenario	Solution overview:
OpenText
Managed Review
	OpenText Managed
Review for

While it’s best to ask the five questions above to be sure you’ve found the rightanswer, here are general “rules of thumb” as to which method(s) are typically best
suited for each scenario.
Litigation — outbound productions• Linear review• TAR

Litigation — inbound productions• RAIR-Enhanced TAR

Hart-Scott-Rodino
Responses
Web page: Managed
Document Review
Responding to data

DSAR / SRR data privacy review and reporting(incl. Pll, PHI)
Third-party subpoenas

Rapid Analytic
Investigative
Review (RAIR)

Regulatory document requests —eg. Antitrust, HSR Second Requests

breaches leveraging
eDiscovery tools
and techniques

Data breach response reviews (incl. Pll, PHI)RAIR for earlydata analysis

Figure 8: Methods best suited for each scenario
Requirements for cost certainty may change the review method, but the fixed-fee
TAR and fixed-fee RAIR variations of TAR and RAIR are best suited for the same
review scenarios respectively as TAR and RAIR.

Conclusion
A one-size-fits-all approach for document review is no longer appropriate. To battle
the “cost monster” and optimize document review for each of the six common
review scenarios in eDiscovery, it’s important to be informed about the sevenreview methods and variations. Answering five simple questions at the outset ofyour review can enable your team to optimize document review in every project,regardless of the scenario.

About OpenText
OpenText, The Information Company, enables organizations to gain insight throughmarket leading information management solutions, on premises or in the cloud. For
more information about OpenText (NASDAQ: OTEX, TSX: OTEX) visit: opentext.com.

Connect with us:• OpenText CEO Mark Barrenechea’s blog
• X (formerly Twitter) | LinkedIn

opentext.com/contact
Copyright © 2023 Open Text. All Rights Reserved. Trademarks owned by Open Text.
For more information, visit: https://www.opentext.com/about/copyright-information • 12.23 | 24441.EN

11/11