Based on a compilation of research from five leading analyst firms in the electronic discovery arena, the following “Top 50” list provides a short listing of fifty electronic discovery providers.
This listing is taken directly from eDiscovery provider mentions in selected key formal industry reports published between August 2011 and December 2012. Where appropriate, the list has been adjusted for industry mergers and acquisitions, with the primary company listed as the recognized eDiscovery provider.
Reports considered in the compilation include:
This listing certainly is not all inclusive of either research firms and/or capable vendors – but does provide an aggregate overview of notable vendors that several industry researchers consider leading technology providers in the field of eDiscovery.
The “Aggregated List”of eDiscovery Providers
Source: Public Domain Research
This entry was posted on Friday, August 17th, 2012 at 10:05 pm. It is filed under chronology, discover and tagged with archiving, electronic discovery, research, social media, storage, vendors. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Comments are closed.
Based on an informal review of research from technology providers, industry analyst firms, and industry expert reports in the data discovery arena, the following short list of enablers highlights companies and technologies that may be useful to technology providers as legal discovery professionals seek to move “to the left of the EDRM” and closer to the point of data creation in their data discovery efforts.
The Victorian Supreme Court will issue a practice note about the use of TAR on 1 January 2017. We understand it will be the first court in Australia to do so. We expect that other Australian courts will follow suit in issuing a practice note, and it will be interesting to follow the approaches taken by other Australian courts.
The biggest takeaway of the joint research project by nonprofit Electronic Discovery Institute and tech giant Oracle Corp. is that TAR is often faster and cheaper when identifying relevant documents. But when it comes to isolating privileged or sensitive information, human reviewers outperformed machines.
ComplexDiscovery | Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International