Litigation Support

PDF

Overview

Relativity logoGreensfelder is a unique law firm that recognizes the importance of excellence in litigation support. Our lawyers are supported by a highly trained and certified team of professionals who ensure that Greensfelder attorneys are taking advantage of the latest technological advances as they handle your matter. Greensfelder has brought the services normally provided by a vendor in-house so that it can provide the same quality service at a much lower cost to our clients.

The Litigation Support department is managed by a lawyer who has in-depth legal and technical knowledge related to issues that arise in electronic discovery. The rest of the in-house team is composed of litigation support case managers and paralegals. To ensure we can always meet clients’ demands, the firm has a managed services relationship with an e-discovery vendor.  The managed services vendor acts as an extension of our in-house team by maintaining an environment of servers for Greensfelder’s license of kCura’s e-discovery platform, Relativity, and by providing backup case support if a large matter requires it.  Greensfelder’s flexible litigation support staffing and infrastructure allows us to effectively scale up for a large case at a moment’s notice. 

Even in cases where Greensfelder is not retained to handle the substance of the case, our Litigation Support team can assist with collection of data in non-forensic matters, processing client data, data hosting, and exhibit preparation. 

Our Litigation Support case managers work directly with the legal team to manage reviews. Our case managers are not passive participants who simply maintain a document database. Rather, they are actively involved in helping the attorneys determine the best way to defensibly review and produce your documents. One of our case managers is a Relativity Certified Expert, meaning she holds three Relativity certifications: Relativity Certified Administrator, Relativity Analytics Specialist, and Relativity Certified User. She is one of only a handful of people with those certifications who works in a law firm environment, and is therefore uniquely qualified to assess which review strategies are most appropriate for the needs of your case.

We use cutting-edge technology and custom review workflows to bring the most relevant information to the legal team as quickly as possible, including:

  • Early case assessment
  • Technology assisted review
  • Email threading
  • Concept analytics
  • Text based near duplicate identification
  • Cost-effective privilege logging

Our carefully woven team of legal and technology professionals ensures that the electronic evidence in every case will be handled defensibly and efficiently.

Key Litigation Support Personnel

Julia Voss

Director of Lit Support & e-Discovery

Jesi Cochran-Buss

Case Manager

Kathleen Huerta

Case manager

Kate Boyd

Paralegal

Andrea Groppe

Andrea Groppe

Paralegal

Karrie Werner

Paralegal

Attorneys

Experience

Representative Matters

  • In an employment case, we were able to identify evidence that the former employee downloaded and printed a customer list only days before he quit. We found this key piece of evidence that was hidden among approximately 50,000 records in about 30 minutes because of our familiarity with advanced searching methods.
  • We used near-duplicate identification to determine that approximately half of the documents in an opposing side’s production were actually near duplicates to documents already in the database. This immediately reduced the review set for this production from approximately 100,000 documents to 50,000 documents.
  • We used numerous techniques including keyword searches, email threading, predictive coding and near-duplicate identification to reduce a set of client documents from 78,000 to only 14,000 that actually needed to be reviewed.
  • Using de-duplication and email threading so that we only had to review the most inclusive, non-duplicative emails, we reduced a review set of client documents from 2.6 million documents gathered to approximately 800,000 documents for review. We then prioritized the review of the 800,000 documents using keyword searches, concept searches, predictive coding, and an analysis of email recipients/senders to find the most important documents first.