MANAGING ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS IN LITIGATION: STEP BY STEP

I. File Review

A. Get familiar with the facts, actors, and actions by reading through the documents.

B. Sketch out on paper, if it helps you to understand complicated or confusing facts/actions.

C. Take note of significant events and dates.

II. Scan or Join Documents into One Master PDF File

III. Bates Number Documents (if applicable)

A. This is easily accomplished with imaged documents by using StampPDF, an Acrobat add-on program. (In Acrobat, go to Document > Single Stamp, set your Bates-numbering preferences, and hit "OK.")

IV. Bookmark Master PDF File Containing Imaged Documents

A. Go through the master PDF file in Acrobat, page by page, stopping to bookmark the beginning page of each individual document. Adopt a naming convention for the bookmarks that will be used throughout the project. For example: Bates Number-CM Short Name combination, such as "P000125 - SalesAgrmt." Keep in mind that, in the master PDF file, you want to pay more attention to descriptive bookmark names when the documents are not Bates-numbered.

B. Once the bookmarks have been created in the master PDF file, they can always be reordered later (leaving pages in the master PDF file in their original order, as opposed to moving physical pages in Acrobat, although there will be times when you will be required to do this.)

C. Color-code the bookmarks in the master PDF file, such as:

1. Blue for important documents;

2. Red for privileged documents;

3. Green for duplicative documents;

4. Gray for routine matter, such as correspondence and pleadings. (I hesitate to say fax cover sheets, because they are often material and their exclusion could wreak havoc if you've compiled your bench book without them.)

V. Enter Objects > Persons in CaseMap

A. Golden Rule (never to be broken): Enter all names into the Objects > Persons database, even if you presently have no idea who the person is. A person's identity can be filled into the database later. In the interim, enter a question into the CM Objects > Questions field, "Who is . . . ?" This reminds all members of the team that there's a potential witness out there whose identity is unknown.

B. A note about entering persons in CM. In order for CM to be most effective, don't commingle a person's "Identity" (description) with his or her "Role in the Case." For example: A person's "Description" might be Chief Operating Officer of a company; his "Role in the Case" might be as a defendant. It may sound like splitting hairs, but when entering data in CM, you should always keep in mind your ultimate goal -- to manage all of the case data efficiently so that it can be retrieved in a meaningful manner.

C. Also, remember to add the attorneys in the litigation to the Objects > Persons database. You'll need this for such things as sourcing documents and facts. However, since I don't always want to see counsel of record appear in my Objects > Persons database, I add a checkbox field, "Counsel," that I mark and then filter the list to exclude them from my view or printed report.

VI. Enter Objects > Organizations in CaseMap

A. See 4 a) and b) above.

VII. Enter Issues in CaseMap

A. I like to limit this to the legal issues in the case. But, if you decide to include general case issues, at least segregate them from the legal issues. I believe it's crucial to keep the data in CM strictly structured according to pre-designed schemes. This makes CM work for you -- information is easier to manage, and everyone on the team is able to learn the system, making them more likely to adhere to it (vital).

B. The attorneys will generally provide assistance in assigning legal issues, but most paralegals can at least begin the issue outline after reviewing the petition, the answer(s), and other applicable pleadings and documents. It's preferable to have the issues outlined before proceeding to enter documents and information, although not absolutely necessary.

VIII. Enter Objects > Documents in CaseMap

A. Common document fields to be included from the beginning of a case:

1. Bates #

a) Like most paralegals, I'm a staunch believer in the wonders of the Bates number, and I use them whenever possible. When I do use Bates numbers, it's convenient to use the Bates number as the CM Short Name. This is particularly true in cases with voluminous documents, when it would be difficult to locate or reference a document by Short Name only.

b) New in CaseMap 4.0: When you enter a beginning Bates number, that value is automatically copied into the ending Bates number and Short Name fields (this is a real time-saver). Then, when you create the next document record, there's a shortcut (right mouse-click and choose "Copy prior 'Bates - Begin' + 1," or "Ctrl-Left Arrow") that generates the next beginning Bates number. You can also "Copy prior 'Bates - End' + 1," or "Ctrl-Right Arrow") to generate the next ending Bates number.

2. Full Name

a) The exact full name of the document, with some exceptions.

b) One exception is when documents have the same or similar names. This occurs frequently, so it's beneficial to adopt a system to deal with it. As an example, suppose there are 2 Settlement Agreements involved in a case -- one with each plaintiff. In CM, you could actually give both of them the Full Name "Settlement Agreement," since objects are distinguished in CM by their Short Names. But you would never do that, because it would mean that you could never tell which agreement was being referred to when reading a CM report (as opposed to viewing it on-screen, where you can get the document's description by mouse-roll-over -- called "Object Hinting" -- of the Short Name). The best way to deal with duplicative document Full Names, then, is to add a descriptive modifier to the Full Name (and Short Name). Example: Settlement Agreement - Doe / "SettlementAgreementDoe" and Settlement Agreement - Jones" / "SettlementAgreementJones."

3. Short Name

a) I like to try whenever possible to let CM assign the Short Names (if I can conform to CM's way of doing things, I'll avoid unnecessary keystrokes). But, there are exceptions. Here's the way I handle the following types of objects in CM:

(1) Correspondence. I've found the easiest way to locate a letter is by its date, rather than descriptively. Example: A letter dated 4/11/02 from ABC Company to XYZ Company. The letter is signed by John Doe, on behalf of ABC, and is addressed to XYZ, Attention: Bill Smith. The person searching CM for this letter may not know or remember that your scheme for Short Names is to refer to it as something like "LtrABCToXYZ" or "LtrDoeToSmith." But there is a constant available -- the date of the letter. So, the Short Name I would choose for that document is "4-11-02LtrABCToXYZ." Correspondence is the only object in CM that I use the date as a Short Name prefix, which makes correspondence both easily recognizable and readily accessible.

(2) Documents with the same or similar names. See Section 2 a) above.

4. Description

a) Other than the evaluation fields, this is the primary document field for entry of commentary information. I try to avoid equivocation in other CM fields. For example, if I'm not sure who the author of a document is, I will either decide who the likely author is and make a note that I've done this in the description field (or in the comment field, if there is one), or mark the Author as TBD or Unknown.

b) Documents like contracts and agreements are generally easily described in a short summary that provides enough specificity to allow a reader to understand the general purpose and nature of the document (and would always require a reading of the document in its entirety anyway).

c) Correspondence, however, is handled very differently. Basically, I think using summaries of anything but routine correspondence can be a mistake. After all, the summary is only as good as the understanding, intuition, and interpretation of the person who formulates it. And, more than that, as a case develops, subtle shifts in strategy occur which can render something discarded upon preliminary analysis valuable but forever lost to the summary that was "set in stone" before the case was fully developed. What I've found works best is to OCR the text and copy it, verbatim, into the Description field in CM. Note, though, that references to the names of people and organizations may have to be edited to conform to your CM Short Name scheme, and that all members of the team should be aware that, from this aspect only, the textual matter in the Description field may not be truly verbatim. (The OCR system also works well for creating medical chronologies from medical records.)

d) Pleadings in the litigation are not included in Objects > Documents in CM. There is a separate database called Objects > Pleadings, with custom fields, where pleadings in the litigation should be entered. If there are pleadings involved other than those in the litigation, of course, those would be handled as any other document in the Objects > Documents database.

5. Date

a) One of the handiest features in CM is the versatility of its date field. A date can be:

(1) TBD (to be determined)

(2) Not Applicable

(3) ~ Around

(4) < Before

(5) =< On or Before

(6) = On

(7) => On or After

(8) > After

(9) Fuzzy (01/??/2003, ??/??/1999, e.g.)

b) A word about sequencing. CM allows sequencing of events occurring on the same date in its Objects > Facts database, but not in its Objects > Documents database (where the value after the date refers to the time of the event).

6. Key

a) The Key and Evaluation fields are by and large the domain of the lawyers. Since the purpose of doing a thorough job in entering data into CM is so that the lawyers can evaluate it, it doesn't make sense for the paralegal to spend even a mouse-click's time on these fields that are so very important to the lawyers. If you've done your job well, the attorneys will be able to breeze right through and note their evaluations in these fields. Of course, it is up to the litigation team to decide how these fields are to be handled.

7. Linked Issue

a) The Linked Issue field is also largely the domain of the lawyers, but unlike the Key and Evaluation fields, a paralegal can be helpful by making connections here. Even if a wrong issue is linked, the attorney can simply redirect the link to the proper issue. You can save the attorney a step along the way if you can add these links when you have a good grasp of the legal issues. In most cases, there are at least a few legal issues that are commonplace to most paralegals, such as Negligence, Damages, Breach of Contract, etc.

8. Linked Question

a) This can be a very important field. Questions that arise while entering or reviewing documents should be entered here. (The easiest way to invoke this link is to use the blue Q: on the CM toolbar.)

9. Author(s)

10. Recipient(s)

11. Copied To

12. Linked File

a) Although CaseMap doesn't have its own image viewer to display documents, it does allow you to open a document using external programs like Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, and Excel.

IX. Enter Objects > Facts in CaseMap

A. Once the Objects > Documents have been entered in CM, you're ready to begin extracting facts from the documents.

1. The most important fields in the Objects >Facts database are: Date & Time, Fact Text, and Source(s). It's extremely important to link to all sources of each purported "fact," and this is easily accomplished by using Short Names.

2. Deciding what a "fact" is can be tricky at first. But a look at the Status field in the Objects > Facts database is quite illuminating. The status of a "fact" can be:

a) Disputed by: Us

b) Disputed by: Opposition

c) Prospective

d) Undisputed

e) Unsure

3. Therefore, a "fact" basically includes:

a) Whatever a party claims to be true;

b) Whatever is known to be true; and

c) Whatever might be true.

d) This is the key field for extracting general information from documents. If something looks like it might be relevant, add it as a fact and let the attorney decide.

4. Questions that arise while entering or reviewing facts can also be entered here. (Invoke the link to a question from the Fact Text field by clicking the blue Q: on the CM toolbar and then entering it.) This is a great way to communicate questions as they arise with all members of the team.

X. Enter Objects > Pleadings in CaseMap

A. Usually, there are 2 types of pleadings that are entered in CM, although there may be times (or come a time) when all pleadings will be entered in CM:

1. Substantive pleadings (petitions, complaints, answers, exceptions, etc.)

2. Discovery pleadings (this is crucial for linking to the sources of documents produced in the litigation)

XI. Enter Other Objects > Questions in CaseMap

A. In addition to the questions entered while inputting data into CM, questions can be entered directly into the Other Objects > Question database, where you can (among other things):

1. Assign one of the following priorities (or one you create) to the question:

a) Can Wait Til Trial

b) High

c) Needs Answer ASAP

d) Very High

2. Assign the task of answering the question to a member of the team;

3. Provide the answer to a question (linkable field);

4. Provide the status of an answer to a question:

a) Answered

b) In Progress

c) Unaddressed

XII. Enter Other Objects > Research in CaseMap

A. The ability to manage research is an exciting new feature in CM 4.0 that I'm just learning to use and can't wait to exploit fully. The Other Objects > Research database includes fields for the following:

1. Name (of case);

2. Jurisdiction;

3. Type:

a) Admin Ruling

b) Article

c) Background Authority

d) Case Law

e) Other Authority

f) Regulation

g) Rule

h) Statute

B. Citation

C. Description

D. Notes

E. Linked Issues

F. Linked File (this can link to an image of the case itself)

XIII. Review Work Product for Accuracy (very important) and Generate Reports (if applicable)

XIV. Backup CaseMap and Adobe Acrobat Files