Providing in-house counsel with a weekly overview of ten significant legal and technology related stories centered around the corporate risk topics of compliance, information governance, privacy and security.
For a running record of Actionable Intelligence “Quick 10″ Weekly Updates – click here.
This entry was posted on Friday, February 1st, 2013 at 7:23 pm. It is filed under chronology, risk and tagged with information governance, privacy, risk, security. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Comments are closed.
Since its 2007 introduction, kCura’s Relativity product has become one of the world’s leading attorney review platforms. One of the elements of Relativity’s strong growth and marketplace acceptance has been kCura’s focus on and support of partnerships. Provided as a by-product of review platform research and presented in the form of a simple and sortable table is an aggregation of kCura Premium Hosting Partners and Consulting Partners.
Taken from a combination of public market sizing estimations as shared in leading electronic discovery reports, publications and posts over time, the following eDiscovery Market Size Mashup shares general worldwide market sizing considerations for both the software and service areas of the electronic discovery market for the years between 2013 and 2018.
Provided as a non-comprehensive overview of key and publicly announced eDiscovery related mergers, acquisitions and investments to date in 2014, the following listing highlights key industry activities through the lens of announcement date, acquired company, acquiring or investing company and acquisition amount (if known).
By William Webber My previous post described in some detail the conditions of finite population annotation that apply to e-discovery. To summarize, what we care about (or at least should care about) is not maximizing classifier accuracy in itself, but minimizing the total cost of achieving a target level of recall. The predominant cost in […]
Given the increasing prevalence of technology assisted review in e-discovery, it seems hard to believe that it was just 19 months ago that TAR received its first judicial endorsement. That endorsement came, of course, from U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck in his landmark ruling in Moore v. Publicis Groupe , 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), adopted sub nom. Moore v. Publicis Groupe SA , No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC)(AJP), 2012 WL 1446534 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2012), in which he stated, “This judicial opinion now recognizes that computer-assisted review is an acceptable way to search for relevant ESI in appropriate cases.”
By Greg Buckles Extract: So here are my Top Ten Reasons Why NOT [To Use] PC-TAR: Perception that PC-TAR costs front load the discovery cost for matters that WILL settle before trial. High resistance to analytic upcharges. Have to justify them on every matter, so go with path of least resistance. Complexity of systems and […]
ComplexDiscovery | Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International