In mass tort litigation, selecting the right data management platform is a critical decision.  It ensures efficiency and accuracy in handling and analyzing vast amounts of data – sometimes millions of documents – enabling attorneys to make and implement decisions that are vital to individual claimants and corporations. 

During Epiq’s Mass & Class conference held in February 2025, Epiq Chief of Staff Thomas Davis moderated a panel of seasoned litigators who addressed this and other significant aspects of data management. 

“Lawyers as we all know, typically are not early adopters of technology,” Davis began. “The legal services industry in general is very slow. That is starting to change. We're finally moving away from spreadsheets and now we're looking at things like platforms and portals and accessing data repositories.” Davis wanted to know how the panelists were making their platform selections. 

“Whatever provider or platform you select, you want your technology solutions to handle volume,” said attorney Asim Badaruzzaman of Sbaiti & Company. When you have many clients, you have streams of data from many different channels in diverse formats. You need bandwidth for critical tasks like processing medical records, identifying physicians, conducting injury and product use analyses, and assessing statutes of limitations across jurisdictions. For these reasons and more, it is imperative to handle data consistently across your ever-expanding database and complex workflows.  

“Lawyers are not always great at standardizing workflows,” he added. “With technology, you must always have lawyers double-check the analysis. And you must formalize your processes; otherwise, your data won’t be consistent. Your data hygiene will suffer. If you make a mistake in mass torts, it gets multiplied by thousands,” he warned. “Standard operating procedures are a must.” Inconsistency and disorganization render data useless and impair your ability to manage cases effectively. 

Davis noted that one of the first decisions firms must make is whether to build their own data management platform or purchase one from a third-party technology company. 

The panel offered a third option. “Our stuff is a hybrid. We buy off the shelf then customize,” Badaruzzaman said. Sindhu Daniel of Scott + Scott, a plaintiffs’ attorney, said her firm does the same by integrating off-the-shelf platforms with tailored customizations to meet our unique needs. Functionality favored by the panel includes effective client communication systems, advanced search capability and electronic signature capability. 

Davis, who is both an attorney and certified fraud examiner, noted the importance of reporting case activity and the need to share and communicate with clients, though the reporting needs of defendants and plaintiffs somewhat differ. 

The panel extolled the virtues of visual dashboards for their ability to quickly convey the status of a case and the claims process. While these are invaluable tools, it is important to know that different cases have different data needs. Having the right data quickly and easily accessible is a must. From the plaintiffs’ perspective, in regard to settlement discussions, “There is nothing worse than defendants knowing more than you,” Daniel said. “Capture as much data as you can.” She also noted the importance of communicating with claimants on a regular basis and keeping the status of their health and ongoing medical conditions updated. 

Sean Fahey of Troutman Pepper Locke said corporate defendants are very interested in data management and having a tool that can give them a view of the matter from 30,000 feet as well as from three inches above ground. Also, he joked, “They love pie charts! And they like to pick their favorite colors. Some especially like colors that match their brand.” 

But companies are not just interested in data for amusement and the imaginative design possibilities. Under the MMSEA — the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 — “When a defendant resolves a case a company is responsible for reporting certain information to the government,” Fahey said. “You can get huge fines as a defendant if you fail to comply.” 
 

Key Takeaways

• Process Standardization. Standard operating procedures and consistent workflows are essential to maintain data integrity and hygiene in legal processes.
• Data Diversity. Effective data management platforms must handle diverse data types and formats consistently to avoid errors in mass tort cases.
• Insights and Reporting. Dashboards and effective reporting are crucial for sharing the status of a case with plaintiffs and defendants and ensuring defendant companies are in compliance with regulations like the MMSEA.
• Hybrid Models. Firms often use a hybrid approach, combining off-the-shelf platforms with custom solution add-ons to meet specific needs, including client communications, advanced search capability and electronic signatures.