Review
February 22, 2013
By Doug Austin
Today’s thought leader is Alon Israely. Alon is a Manager of Strategic Partnerships at Business Intelligence Associates (BIA) and currently leads the Strategic Partner Program at BIA. Alon has over seventeen years of experience in a variety of advanced computing-related technologies and has consulted with law firms and their clients on a variety of technology issues, including expert witness services related to computer forensics, digital evidence management and data security. Alon is an attorney and Certified Information Security Specialist (CISSP).
Read more
February 21, 2013
By Doug Austin
Today’s thought leader is Laura Zubulake. Laura worked on Wall Street for 20 years in institutional equity departments and, in 1991, authored the book The Complete Guide to Convertible Securities Worldwide. She was the plaintiff in the Zubulake vs. UBS Warburg case, which resulted in several landmark opinions related to eDiscovery and counsel’s obligations for the preservation of electronically stored information. The December 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were influenced, in part, by the Zubulake case. Last year, Laura published a book titled Zubulake's e-Discovery: The Untold Story of my Quest for Justice, previously discussed on this blog and she speaks professionally about eDiscovery topics and her experiences related to the case.
Read more
February 19, 2013
By Doug Austin
We’ve mentioned Ralph Losey from Jackson Lewis several times on this blog, including last year’s thought leader interview at LegalTech New York and our interview with him again this year, which will be published on March 1. We’re discussing another interesting article from Losey, but this time it’s Adam Losey. His article 10 Tips for LegalTech Vendors, that appeared in Law Technology News has some interesting tips that all vendors (especially those exhibiting at trade shows) should bear in mind. Here are his tips, along with some of my comments.
Read more
February 15, 2013
By Doug Austin
Today’s thought leader is Tom Gelbmann. Tom is Principal of Gelbmann & Associates, LLC. Since 1993, Gelbmann & Associates, LLC has advised law firms and Corporate Law Departments to realize the full benefit of their investments in Information Technology. Tom has also been co-author of the leading survey on the electronic discovery market, The Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey; in 2011 he and George Socha converted the Survey into Apersee, an online system for selecting eDiscovery providers and their offerings. In 2005, he and George Socha launched the Electronic Discovery Reference Model project to establish standards within the eDiscovery industry – today, the EDRM model has become a standard in the industry for the eDiscovery life cycle.
Read more
February 11, 2013
By Doug Austin
Today’s thought leader is Brad Jenkins of CloudNine Discovery. Brad has over 20 years of experience as an entrepreneur, as well as 14 years leading customer focused companies in the litigation support arena. Brad also writes the Litigation Support Industry Blog, which covers news about litigation support and e-discovery companies' funding activities, acquisitions & mergers and notable business successes. He has authored many articles on document management and litigation support issues, and has appeared as a speaker before national audiences on document management practices and solutions.
Read more
February 01, 2013
By Jane Gennarelli
In this blog series, we’ve talked quite a bit about discovery, and we’ve covered the first steps involved in handling documents – steps that lead up to the document review. As a litigation technology professional, you’ve probably assisted litigation teams in the review process. You might have helped to select, set up, and maintain review technology applications, or to supervise document review activities. Your focus has probably been on technology and monitoring project status. It’s important, however, that you don’t lose sight of the objectives of the document review, and that you understand the challenges that come with the territory. Keeping these things in mind will better enable you to make valuable contributions to the document review effort.
Read more
January 28, 2013
By Doug Austin
It might be, if the alternative is 62,000 missed relevant documents. Last week, we reported on the first case for technology assisted review to be completed, Global Aerospace Inc., et al, v. Landow Aviation, L.P. dba Dulles Jet Center, et al, in which predictive coding was approved last April by Virginia State Circuit Court Judge James H. Chamblin. Now, as reported by the ABA Journal (by way of the Wall Street Journal Law Blog), we have an idea of the results from the predictive coding exercise.
Read more
January 21, 2013
By Doug Austin
As reported in Law Technology News by Evan Koblentz, it appears we have our first case in which predictive coding has been completed.
Read more
January 16, 2013
By Doug Austin
As we noted yesterday, eDiscoveryDaily published 98 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases! Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to proportionality and cooperation, privilege and inadvertent disclosures, and eDiscovery cost reimbursement. Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to social media and, of course, technology assisted review(!).
Read more
January 03, 2013
By Jane Gennarelli
In an earlier post in this series, we talked about the vehicles of discovery – that is, the mechanisms by which parties exchange information. One of the mechanisms we discussed is Document Production, which is the exchange of relevant documents between the parties. This step is usually the most time-consuming and expensive part of discovery. In fact, it’s often the most time-consuming and expensive part of a lawsuit. It has always been a significant task, but since eDiscovery has come into the picture, it has grown by magnitudes.
Read more
December 21, 2012
By Doug Austin
If 2012 will be remembered for anything from an eDiscovery standpoint, it will be remembered for the arrival of Technology Assisted Review (TAR), aka Computer Assisted Review (CAR), as a court accepted method for conducting eDiscovery review. Many associate TAR with predictive coding, but that’s not the only form of TAR to assist with review. How the documents are organized for review can make a big difference in the efficiency of review, not only saving costs, but also improving accuracy by assigning similar documents to the same reviewer.
Read more
December 14, 2012
By Doug Austin
There have been a number of terms applied to using technology to aid in eDiscovery review, including technology assisted review (often referred to by its acronym “TAR”) and predictive coding. Another term is Computer Assisted Review (which lends itself to the obvious acronym of “CAR”).
Now, the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) is looking to provide an “owner’s manual” to that CAR with its new draft Computer Assisted Review Reference Model (CARRM), which depicts the flow for a successful CAR project.
Read more
December 11, 2012
By Doug Austin
According to Kroll Ontrack, the percentage of eDiscovery cases addressing sanctions “dropped by approximately ten percent” compared to 2011, while “cases addressing procedural issues more than doubled”. Let’s take a closer look at the numbers and look at some cases in each category.
Read more
December 07, 2012
By Doug Austin
As we discussed yesterday, one feature of review solutions that often gets overlooked is the ability for the review solution to automatically document searching and review activities. Not only does that make it easier to identify potential issues in the process; it also facilitates the ability for attorneys to demonstrate a defensible approach to discovery to the court. Let’s discuss two other areas where self-documentation can assist in the discovery analysis and review process.
Read more
December 06, 2012
By Doug Austin
When evaluating eDiscovery review solutions, there are a number of features that attorneys consider as part of their selection process. For example: What searching capabilities does the solution have? How does it handle native files? How does it support annotations and redactions of images? Can it support conceptual clustering and predictive coding? But, one feature that often gets overlooked is the ability for the review solution to automatically document searching and review activities. Not only does that make it easier to identify potential issues in the process; it also facilitates the ability for attorneys to demonstrate a defensible approach to discovery to the court.
Read more
November 29, 2012
By Doug Austin
Do you know what a “Confidence Level” is? No, I’m not talking about Tom Brady completing football passes in coverage. How about “Harmonic Mean”? Maybe if I hum a few bars? Gaussian Calculator? Sorry, it has nothing to do with how many Tums you should eat after a big meal. No, the answer to all of these can be found in the new Grossman-Cormack Glossary of Technology Assisted Review.
Read more
November 19, 2012
By Doug Austin
In the case In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, a case management order applicable to pretrial proceedings in a multidistrict litigation consolidating eleven civil actions, the court issued comprehensive instructions for the use of technology-assisted review (“TAR”).
Read more
November 15, 2012
By Doug Austin
Tuesday, we discussed the various permutations of names of individuals to include in your searching for a more complete result set, as well as the benefits of proximity searching (broader than a phrase search, more precise than an AND search) to search for names of individuals. Another way to identify documents associated with individuals is through their email addresses.
Read more
November 13, 2012
By Doug Austin
When looking for documents in your collection that mention key individuals, conducting a name search for those individuals isn’t always as straightforward as you might think. There are potentially a number of different ways names could be represented and if you don’t account for each one of them, you might fail to retrieve key responsive documents – OR retrieve way too many non-responsive documents. Here are some considerations for conducting name searches.
Read more
November 12, 2012
By Doug Austin
It seems like ages ago when New York Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck denied the motion of the plaintiffs in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group to recuse himself in the case. It was all the way back in June. Now, District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. has ruled on the plaintiff’s recusal request.
Read more
October 31, 2012
By Doug Austin
Today is Halloween. While we could try to “scare” you with the traditional “frights”, we’re an eDiscovery blog, so every year we try to “scare” you in a different way instead. Does this scare you?
Read more
October 29, 2012
By Doug Austin
As reported in Ralph Losey’s e-Discovery Team® blog, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster in Delaware Chancery Court – in EORHB, Inc., et al v. HOA Holdings, LLC, – has issued a “surprise” bench order requiring both sides to use predictive coding and to use the same vendor.
Read more
