Audit of e-discovery and litigation readiness

• Previous page

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary
• 1. Statement of Conformance
• 2. Acknowledgement
• 3. Background
• 4. Audit Objective
• 5. Audit Scope
• 6. Audit Approach
• 7. Findings, Recommendations and Management Response and Action Plan
  • 7.1 E-Discovery Practices
  • 7.2 Sustainability of E-Discovery Efforts
  • 7.3 National Litigation Readiness Standard
  • 7.4 Innovation and Transformation
  • 7.5 Recordkeeping and Record Retention
• 8. Audit Opinion
• Appendix A – Audit Criteria

Executive Summary

Introduction

In Canada, once civil litigation has commenced, parties engaged in litigation must participate in ‘discovery’. Discovery is a pre-trial procedure in which the parties to a claim identify information that is relevant to a case and produce or present that information to the opposing side. E-discovery is the process by which electronic information is produced and presented. Discovery serves several purposes: to enable the opposing party to know the case against it; to help identify and resolve disputed facts; and to narrow the legal issues to be heard at trial.

Whereas the e-discovery process begins at the onset of litigation (and continues throughout a trial), ‘litigation readiness’ is the process by which an organization prepares for a legal action. It includes the development of robust information management practices, the creation of a litigation readiness plan, and the implementation of discovery-related policies and practices. Litigation readiness is inextricably linked to e-discovery; the more prepared an organization is for litigation, the better equipped it will be to support its legal obligations for the production and presentation of electronic records.

Ensuring that federal institutions are prepared for litigation, and that e-discovery activities are conducted in a sustainable manner, is critical to the Department of Justice and the Crown. It is perhaps particularly important in large and complex cases, where litigation costs, including the retrieval and processing of electronic records, can be substantial. Litigation readiness and e-discovery can also help to reduce some of the legal risks associated with trial, and to improve litigation outcomes. Conversely, being ill-prepared for litigation, or not having an effective strategy to manage e-discovery, can result in the Crown being unable to identify information resources that help to defend an action.  It might also result in the erosion of the confidence of senior officials in the Department of Justice as legal advisors.

Strengths

Overall, we found that the Department of Justice has sufficient measures in place to support litigation teams in meeting their e-discovery obligations. This includes policies, processes, tools and templates to help ensure that the Department’s e-discovery practices are conducted in a consistent and effective manner.

We also found that investments made by the Department, both in the establishment of the National e-discovery and Litigation Support Services group (NeDLSS) and in the acquisition and deployment of e-discovery software, have helped to contain costs associated with e-discovery.

Areas for Improvement

Despite advancements in the development of internal policies for e-discovery, the Department has not yet fulfilled its commitments towards the development and implementation of a National Litigation Readiness Standard. Whereas the vast majority of departments consulted indicated that they were not adequately prepared for litigation, the importance of the Standard in guiding officials on how to meet the challenges of litigation cannot be understated. Fulfilling its commitments towards the implementation of the Standard requires the renewed and on-going participation of central agencies responsible for government policy, and the buy-in of client departments.

Audit Opinion and Conclusion

In our opinion, the Department of Justice has established mechanisms to support sustainable e-discovery and litigation readiness practices, including the advancement and modernization of litigation practices and tools. The Department has developed measures, such as the Disclosure Project Management Framework (and a variety of supporting tools and guidelines) to support litigation teams in meeting their e-discovery obligations. The Department is also meeting its discovery obligations in a sustainable manner. The establishment of NeDLSS and the acquisition of e-discovery software has allowed the Department, as a whole, to process and analyze collections at a lower cost than had it continued to outsource e-discovery services. Opportunities exist however to further help support federal institutions in preparing for litigation. Internally, there is also room for improvement to encourage the adoption of the Disclosure Project Management Framework, and to make its complementary tools available to counsel. Going forward, NeDLSS would benefit from a strategic plan that aligns its practices with client-centric innovation outcomes, and which anticipates and fulfills the need for expertise and tools in emerging areas of e-litigation.

Management Response

Management is in agreement with the audit findings, has accepted the recommendations included in this report as noted, and has developed a management action plan to address them. The management action plan has been integrated into this report.

1. Statement of Conformance

In my professional judgment as Chief Audit Executive, the audit conforms to the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, as supported by the results of the Quality Assurance and Improvement Program.

Submitted by:

Anne Patenaude
Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive
Department of Justice Canada

2. Acknowledgement

The Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive would like to thank the audit team and those individuals who contributed to this engagement.  She would also like to thank the Director of National e-Discovery and Litigation Support Services for his cooperation and hard work in facilitating the conduct of the audit, over and above his regular work responsibilities.

As part of the audit, the audit team consulted with several litigation teams within the Department’s Civil Litigation sector, and with select Departmental Legal Service Units (DLSUs). These consultations were intended to better inform our understanding of the issues facing legal teams, and to help understand the needs of legal practitioners engaged in e-discovery. We wish to also acknowledge the important contributions of those officials towards the audit findings.

3. Background

As part of its 2013-2014 Legal Services Review, the Department of Justice Canada committed to working with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) to develop a National Litigation Readiness Standard. The Department also committed to achieving soft savings (or cost avoidances) through the provision of more efficient litigation document management services. Together, these initiatives were intended to help contain the growth in legal costs resulting from the proliferation of electronic information, and to ensure that client departments are better prepared for litigation, if and when actions arise.

About E-Discovery and Litigation Readiness

Discovery is part of the legal process that leads up to trial. It takes place after a claim has been made by a plaintiff but before the trial itself. Discovery is a legal obligation governed by the laws of civil procedure. In most cases, it is the longest stage of litigation. It is also generally the most expensive. As its name implies, discovery is where litigants “discover” facts about the case, allowing legal counsel to begin assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their client’s position.

As part of the documentary discovery process, litigants must identify, preserve and collect documents that are relevant to the case. Thereafter, they must disclose relevant documents and ‘produce’ (or provide) them to the other party (except where the documents in question are protected by privilege, in which case the documents must still be disclosed to the other party, but not produced).

Electronic discovery or ‘e-discovery’ refers to the discovery of electronically stored information. This includes e-mail, text messages, word processing files, electronic spreadsheets, images, videos, sound recordings, web and social media content, and any other information that is stored on a computer, smart phone, database, or other electronic device. It also includes the meta-data attached to that information.

Whereas e-discovery begins at the onset of litigation (and continues throughout a trial), ‘litigation readiness’ is the process by which an organization prepares for a legal action and supports its discovery obligations. Its focus is on business process improvements, such as the development of a litigation readiness plan, the assignment and understanding of key roles and responsibilities for e-discovery, the development of discovery tools and expertise, and the sharing of specialized knowledge and e-discovery techniques.

Figure 1: Main Steps in Litigation

Text version – Figure 1: Main Steps in Litigation

• Litigation Readiness
• Statement of Claim
• Litigation Hold
• Statement of Defence
• Discovery
• Trial
• Court Decision

Challenges Associated with E-Discovery

The sheer volume and prevalence of electronic information in the workplace is critical in understanding the challenges associated with e-discovery. By most estimates, between 90 and 95 percent of all new business documents are created in an electronic format. With an emphasis now on environmental friendliness and the government’s move towards digitalization, electronic documents often serve as an institution’s official and only business record.

This vast accumulation of electronic records, along with all the meta-data attached to those records, has greatly increased the time, complexity and cost of e-discovery efforts. Once potentially relevant documents have been identified, they must be collected in a manner that is efficient, auditable, and legally defensible. Collections must also take into consideration the many different challenges that arise when collecting records in different formats and from different systems. Similar challenges occur in record processing, review, and analysis. Processing involves, among other things, the loading and coding of documents, while review and analysis involves the identification of relevant and privileged documents.

According to leading research, it is estimated that e-discovery accounts for up to 70 percent of the cost of litigation in relation to large and complex files. These costs are expected to increase going forward, in part due to the increased collection and retention of electronic records. Simply put, the volume of potentially relevant documents for litigation has expanded exponentially and the review of those documents requires specialized skills and resources.

Challenges Specific to the Department of Justice

Challenges associated with e-discovery are relatively universal across the legal community. However, there are a number of additional challenges that the Department of Justice faces in its role as legal counsel to the Government of Canada given the government’s size and complexity. Discovery issues often arise in cases where there are difficulties in locating and collecting electronic records. This is particularly the case for large, complex, and historic cases, where documents are widely held and difficult to identify and preserve. In such cases, the collection of electronic records can impact any number of departments.

Furthermore, as record-keeping practices and information technology systems vary from one department to another, the identification, preservation and collection of electronic records requires the intervention of multiple experts and stakeholders. Unlike the legal representatives of some private parties, who may only be responsible for the production of information from one single client or organization at trial, litigation teams at the Department of Justice must lead and manage the production of electronic information from any number of departments, systems and custodians.

E-Discovery and Litigation Readiness Responsibilities

E-discovery and litigation readiness within the Government of Canada requires the participation of all stakeholders. Client departments, legal service units, and litigation teams all play an important role in meeting the Crown’s obligations for the production of electronic information. While ultimate responsibility for the production of electronic information rests with the Department of Justice as legal counsel for the Crown, being litigation ready is a responsibility of each and every federal institution.

At the Department of Justice, e-discovery responsibilities are shared between litigation teams and the National e-Discovery and Litigation Support Services (NeDLSS). Whereas litigation teams are responsible for leading e-discovery efforts, and for guiding client departments and information custodians in the identification, preservation and collection of electronically stored information, NeDLSS serves as centre of expertise for evidence management and evidentiary issues more generally. When engaged by litigation teams, NeDLSS provides strategic advice on discovery and disclosure practices. It also provides tools and support for evidence processing and review.

At the time of the audit, NeDLSS was organized into three primary practices: National Litigation Support Services (NLSS); Evidence Management (EvMT); and Advisory Services. NLSS is the first point of contact for all litigation support services and technologies within NeDLSS. It provides both strategic and operational advice to litigation teams on the proper preservation, collection, processing and production of evidence. The EvMT also supports litigation teams by providing expedited and technology-assisted document review and analysis services. Advisory Services provides strategic advice on all matters of evidence and is responsible for developing, implementing and supporting best practices in litigation readiness.

4. Audit Objective

The objective of the audit was to provide assurance that the Department has established mechanisms to support e-discovery and litigation readiness commitments in a sustainable manner, including the advancement and modernization of litigation practices and tools.

5. Audit Scope

Although litigation readiness and e-discovery is a shared responsibility across government, the focus of the audit was on the activities of NeDLSS. Collaboration with key internal and external stakeholders was evaluated where appropriate. The audit covered fiscal years 2016-17 and 2017-18.

6. Audit Approach

The audit team carried out its mandate in accordance with Treasury Board’s Policy on Internal Audit and the Institute of Internal Auditors’ International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing. The audit employed various techniques including a risk assessment of the audit entity, interviews, system walkthroughs, and the review and analysis of documentation.

7. Findings, Recommendations and Management Response and Action Plan

This section outlines findings and recommendations resulting from the audit work performed. For ease of review, the findings and recommendations have been structured according to issues identified in the course of the audit. For a listing of audit lines of enquiry and audit criteria please refer to Appendix A.

7.1 E-Discovery Practices

The Department of Justice has developed a Disclosure Project Management (DPM) framework to guide and support litigation teams in meeting their e-discovery obligations in a consistent and effective manner. However, as the intrinsic benefits of the Framework are not well understood, and whereas tools and templates supporting the Framework are not readily available, the Framework is not widely used.

In support of its role as the Attorney General of Canada, it is important for the Department of Justice to have adequate measures in place to guide and support litigators in meeting their e-discovery obligations. This includes policies, processes, tools and templates to help ensure that the Department’s e-discovery practices are conducted in a consistent and effective manner.

In 2014, in order to better encourage and support the adoption of a project management approach to e-discovery, NeDLSS developed a formal e-discovery model, the DPM. It serves as a conceptual guide for documentary discovery activities within the Department, and as a model for litigation teams engaged in the production of electronic evidence. Developed in keeping with industry practices, including the ‘Electronic Discovery Reference Model’ developed by the Duke University School of Law, the Framework was designed to incorporate information management practices specific to federal institutions, including the maintenance of paper and historic records.

In most cases, the DPM should serve as an effective structure for organizing e-discovery activities. It is intended as a model for encouraging litigation teams to plan, analyze and project-manage the discovery process. While the DPM is best integrated into litigation practices at the onset of discovery, it may be successfully implemented at any stage of litigation. The Framework, as structured, recognizes that e-discovery activities are generally iterative in nature and rarely unfold in a linear fashion. The DPM is also intended to be scalable.

Use of the DPM can have clear and significant advantages. Whereas e-discovery efforts can be inherently expensive, the application of the DPM can help contain costs and minimize legal risks. It also helps to ensure that information is collected and processed in an efficient, auditable, and legally defensible manner. Developing an identification strategy and plan – the first step in the DPM – for example, can assist litigation teams in determining the appropriate scope, breadth and depth of information gathering activities. This in turn helps to better identify business units, people, systems and paper files containing relevant sources of information, and to place an effective legal hold on that information. Downstream, the proper identification of information sources helps to ensure that electronically stored information and its metadata is protected against inappropriate alterations, and that the collection and processing of that information is done in an efficient manner.

Despite the many benefits of using the DPM, not all litigation teams are formally using the Framework. Based on our consultations with litigation teams, the tepid employment of the DPM and the sometimes reluctant (or late) engagement of NeDLSS appears to be the result of several factors. Currently, the use of the DPM is not mandatory. Under the Department’s Directive on Legal Project Management, a project-management approach is only required for files assessed as high risk and high legal complexity, or where the file involves three or more clients and where the estimated time associated with discovery exceeds 150 hours. While this may be an appropriate threshold for the use of EvMT, it may have the unintended effect of reducing the engagement of NLSS and the DPM more broadly.

Adding to the slow uptake of the DPM is the fact that the Framework’s benefits are not well understood. While many litigators within the Department apply project management techniques in overseeing e-discovery activities, the full benefits of the DPM – as a process and not just as a project management tool – are often lost on litigators, whose immediate challenge and pre-occupation at the onset of litigation is to become familiar with the legal issues in the case. Most of the litigation teams and legal service units interviewed were not aware of the existence of the DPM, and few had seen or accessed the tools available to them for overseeing e-discovery activities.

Recommendation 1

It is recommended that the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, National Litigation Sector encourage the more proactive adoption of the DPM by more formally integrating the DPM into existing litigation policies and guidelines, and by fully deploying tools needed to support the DPM’s operationalization.

7.2 Sustainability of E-Discovery Efforts

The Department of Justice is undertaking its discovery obligations with respect to electronic evidence in a sustainable manner and NeDLSS is managing demand for its services effectively, in keeping with its limited resources. Continued investments in specialized e-discovery tools, and the seeding of e-discovery knowledge and skills within litigation teams should help to ensure that practices remain sustainable, and that specialized knowledge pertaining to e-discovery is transferred.

As part of the audit we sought to uncover how e-discovery costs were being managed by the Department, and whether e-discovery efforts were being undertaken in an efficient and sustainable manner. To this end, we assessed the Department’s in-house capacity for evidence management and advisory work, and its monitoring and reporting of e-discovery expenditures overall. We also reviewed the costs of e-discovery for a sample of recent cases and compared the cost of processing data internally with the cost of processing data externally.

As previously indicated, in 2013-2014, as part of its Legal Services Review, the Department of Justice committed to achieving soft savings (or cost avoidances) of $9.5 million through the introduction of more efficient litigation document management services. Together with the introduction of a government-wide standard for litigation readiness, these services were expected to help contain the growth in legal costs resulting from the proliferation of electronic information.

Soft savings were based on a number of assumptions regarding the volume and cost of data processing. For example, the Department expected to see a continuous increase in large and complex litigation and a resulting increase in the costs of record processing and analysis. This has not been the case. It was also assumed that the cost of processing electronically stored information would remain static, when in fact, the cost of external processing and analysis has declined over time.

Notwithstanding the above, investments made by the Department – both in the establishment of NeDLSS and in the acquisition and deployment of specialized software – have yielded important savings. To this point, we note that contracting for e-discovery related services has consistently declined since NeDLSS’ formation, a trend that coincides with the increase in file management, coding, and quality control work assumed by EvMT. In addition, cost calculations of processing electronically stored information externally were based on a market rate of $250 per gigabyte, which was a fair and conservative estimate for the three year period of Legal Services Review (2014-15 to 2016-17) given the history of declining rates.  The cost of processing electronically stored information has continued to decline since the beginning of the Legal Services Review period.

Although litigation teams continue to outsource record management tasks of an archival nature, and while some client departments continue to rely on external contractors for record keeping and processing, costs associated with e-discovery are, for the time-being, manageable. Although departmental costs associated with e-discovery remain substantial, they have been more or less contained. The results of the audit indicate that NeDLSS is managing demand for its services in an effective manner and is prioritizing the use of its limited resources. In addition, NeDLSS monitors and tracks the cost of its evidence management activities.

Going forward, in order to ensure that costs associated with e-discovery remain sustainable, there is a need to continue investing in specialized e-discovery tools. It is equally important to ensure that the Department is transferring e-discovery knowledge and skills to litigation teams. NeDLSS, in turn, should continue to invest in specialized training and infrastructure so as to remain the Department’s centre of expertise for e-discovery.

7.3 National Litigation Readiness Standard

The Department of Justice has not fully met its commitments towards the advancement of a National Litigation Readiness Standard. Tools supporting litigation readiness have been piloted but have not been fully operationalized and deployed.

Being litigation ready can help to reduce some of the legal costs associated with trials, and help to improve litigation outcomes. It is on this basis that the Government of Canada set out in 2013 to introduce a National Litigation Readiness Standard. As part of the audit, we assessed the extent to which the Department had fulfilled its commitment to support the advancement of the Standard. We also examined the extent to which it was involved in outreach activities to promote best practices in litigation readiness.

There are a variety of circumstances that lead to the creation of a Treasury Board management or administrative policy instrument. Policy instruments serve to establish and promote a consistent management approach across government, and to manage significant risks to the operations of all departments. Whereas litigation readiness practices vary from institution to institution, and whereas the risks associated with being unprepared for litigation are significant, both policy objectives are particularly relevant to the development of a National Litigation Readiness Standard.

In 2014, the Department of Justice developed a draft Standard which sets out key institutional responsibilities for litigation readiness and establishes operational practices critical to those duties (i.e., how managers and functional specialists are expected to conduct certain aspects of their duties for litigation readiness). Based on the Foundation Framework for Treasury Board policies, its application would be mandatory for all federal institutions, thereby establishing a clear direction to departments on how to orient their information management practices and litigation readiness activities.

There has been little progress to advance the Standard since 2014 due to competing priorities, both at the Department of Justice and at TBS. Discussions with TBS on the matter of the Standard were only re-established at the conclusion of the audit, and although several tools supporting the Standard have been piloted, most remain a work in progress. Their development and testing – a responsibility that rests with NeDLSS – is critical in advancing the implementation of the Standard.

As previously stated, errors or omissions in the identification and collection of electronic information in the course of litigation can seriously impact litigation outcomes and results. E-discovery can also add millions of dollars in costs to a large or complex case if not performed properly.  While it is not the Department of Justice’s mandate to establish or dictate the government’s information management procedures, poor record keeping practices can compound problems in e-discovery.  As such, it is incumbent on the Department, as the government’s legal advisor, to inform those who are not litigation ready of the legal risks associated with poor practices.

Recommendation 2

It is recommended that the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, National Litigation Sector renew efforts to finalize the National Litigation Readiness Standard and that NeDLSS work more closely with internal and external stakeholders to advance common goals related to litigation readiness.

7.4 Innovation and Transformation

While NeDLSS has established short and medium-term objectives for e-discovery, there is a need to formulate longer term plans for innovation in e-litigation (complementary to the activities of the Department’s Legal Practices Sector and the innovation goals of the Department as a whole).

In addition to its role as a centre of expertise for e-discovery, NeDLSS serves as a centre for innovation in e-litigation. As part of the audit, we inquired as to whether NeDLSS had a long-term strategic plan for the acquisition, testing and implementation of e-litigation tools. We also sought to assess whether there was an effective change management approach in place to support the adoption of new technologies. Finally, we considered whether NeDLSS was measuring innovation outcomes and reporting on the results of innovation activities to senior management.

Since its creation, NeDLSS’ efforts in relation to innovation have been focused on the development of guidelines, tools and templates supporting e-discovery. Innovation goals for the two years ahead are focused on the same, in particular the search, testing and acquisition of new e-discovery software. As part of the Department’s ‘Next Generation Litigation Software’ project, for example, NeDLSS will lead efforts to renew its evidence management platform so as to introduce technological solutions that better support its DPM. These goals are in line with the Department’s strategic priorities and those of the government more generally.

Apart from the above, NeDLSS does not have a long term strategic plan. Its last strategic plan, the ‘National eDiscovery and Litigation Support Services Business Plan & Objectives’, was developed in 2012. It followed the Department’s 2011 Report on the State of eDiscovery, and was focused first and foremost on how best to organize, align, and structure the group’s resources. Given the substantial advances NeDLSS and the Department have seen in the past several years with respect to e-discovery, and with plans relating to the Next Generation Litigation Software project now well underway, the Department should refocus on the transformation and innovation of litigation practices. To this end, the development of a concise, long-term strategic plan should be a priority. The plan should include measurable innovation outcomes that focus on clients’ needs, and the continuous tracking and alignment of practices with departmental goals. The plan should also anticipate potential gaps in expertise and tools related to new emerging areas in e-litigation. Whereas change remains a key barrier to the adoption of new technologies and to the adoption of new litigation practices, some study or consideration of how best to effect the changes necessary will be critical.

Recommendation 3

It is recommended that the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, National Litigation Sector develop a long-term strategic plan for NeDLSS in consultation with the Department’s Legal Practices Sector. NeDLSS should establish clear, client-centric innovation outcomes and report regularly on the results of innovation activities to senior management.

7.5 Recordkeeping and Record Retention

In the course of litigation, and in keeping with its responsibilities for evidence management, the Department of Justice collects, processes, and retains a vast number of client records. These records are provided to the Department in confidence for the purpose of prosecuting or defending the interests of the Government of Canada in a legal action. As part of the audit, we assessed the processes the Department has in place to ensure that it is meeting its regulatory requirements for the retention and disposal of those records.

Overall, the audit found the Department of Justice had established policies for the retention of electronic records collected from client departments.  These policies, in concert with those of the Government of Canada, help support the proper management and disposition of information gathered by Justice as evidence for purposes of litigation.  According to the Department’s Standard on Managing Digital Information, and in accordance with the Department’s Records Disposition Authorities, e-discovery records maintained by NeDLSS are to be kept for 12 years following the closing of a case file (i.e., when all appeals have been exhausted).

8. Audit Opinion

In our opinion, the Department of Justice has established mechanisms to support sustainable e-discovery and litigation readiness practices, including the advancement and modernization of litigation practices and tools. The Department has developed measures, such as the Disclosure Project Management Framework (and a variety of supporting tools and guidelines) to support litigation teams in meeting their e-discovery obligations. The Department is also meeting its discovery obligations in a sustainable manner.  The establishment of NeDLSS and the acquisition of e-discovery software has allowed the Department, as a whole, to process and analyze collections at a lower cost than had it continued to outsource e-discovery services. Opportunities exist however to further help support federal institutions in preparing for litigation. Internally, there is also room for improvement to encourage the adoption of the Disclosure Project Management Framework, and to make its complementary tools available to counsel. Going forward, NeDLSS would benefit from a strategic plan that aligns its practices with client-centric innovation outcomes, and which anticipates and fulfills the need for expertise and tools in emerging areas of e-litigation.

Appendix A – Audit Criteria

Line of Enquiry 1 – Supporting e-Discovery and Evidence Management Practices

• Criterion 1.1 – The Department has measures in place to support the Crown in meeting its obligations for the identification, preservation, collection, disclosure and production of electronic evidence in the course of litigation.
  • Sub-Criterion 1.1.1 – There are policies, processes, and tools in place to help ensure that the Department’s e-discovery practices are conducted in a consistent and effective manner; and
  • Sub-Criterion 1.1.2 – The Department has processes in place to help ensure that it is meeting regulatory requirements for the retention and disposal of client information.
• Criterion 1.2 – The Department is undertaking its discovery obligations with respect to electronic evidence in a sustainable manner.
  • Sub-Criterion 1.2.1 – NeDLSS is managing demand for its services so as to prioritize the use of its limited resources, and developing in-house capacity for evidence management and advisory services so as to reduce the Department’s reliance on external contractors; and
  • Sub-Criterion 1.2.2 – The Department is monitoring the cost of e-discovery activities and is reporting on the results of cost-saving commitments on a regular basis.

Line of Enquiry 2 – Improving Litigation Readiness across Government

• Criterion 2.1 – NeDLSS is working collaboratively with internal and external stakeholders to advance common goals related to litigation readiness.
  • Sub-Criterion 2.1.1 – The Department is fulfilling its commitment to support the advancement of a National Litigation Readiness Standard for the whole of government; and
  • Sub-Criterion 2.1.2 – NeDLSS is engaged in effective outreach activities to promote the adoption of best practices in litigation readiness and the use of litigation readiness tools.

Line of Enquiry 3 – Transformation

• Criterion 3.1 – The Department is well positioned to adapt to changes and challenges in the litigation environment, and is developing tools needed for the future of litigation.
  • Sub-Criterion 3.1.1 – NeDLSS has a long-term strategic plan for the development, testing and implementation of e-Litigation tools;
  • Sub-Criterion 3.1.2 – There is an effective change management approach in place to support the adoption of new technologies; and
  • Sub-Criterion 3.1.3 – NeDLSS is measuring innovation outcomes and is reporting regularly on the results of innovation activities to senior management.