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 22nd, 2013 at 3:59 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).
In my previous post, I found that relevance and uncertainty selection needed similar numbers of document relevance assessments to achieve a given level of recall. I summarized this by saying the two methods had similar cost. The number of documents assessed, however, is only a very approximate measure of the cost of a review process, and richer cost models might lead to a different conclusion.
One distinction that is sometimes made is between the cost of training a document, and the cost of reviewing it. It is often assumed that training is performed by a subject-matter expert, whereas review is done by more junior reviewers. The subject-matter expert costs more than the junior reviewers—let’s say, five times as much. Therefore, assessing a document for relevance during training will cost more than doing so during review.
A critical metric in Technology Assisted Review (TAR) is recall, which is the percentage of relevant documents actually found from the collection. One of the most compelling reasons for using TAR is the promise that a review team can achieve a desired level of recall (say 75% of the relevant documents) after reviewing only a small portion of the total document population (say 5%). The savings come from not having to review the remaining 95% of the documents.
On Oct. 7, 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that Microsoft had signed a letter of intent to buy what they called an Israel-based text analysis startup company named Equivio . The mainstream business press has virtually no understanding of the e-discovery industry, nor anything having to do with litigation support. They also seem to have no real grasp of what kind of software Equivio and others like it in the industry have created.
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.”
ComplexDiscovery | Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International