Extract: Choosing an e-discovery solution means addressing several interconnected issues. Product demos can be impressive, but don’t be fooled: a tool’s features can be the least important factor for you to consider. KPMG Canada’s Dominic Jaar, partner and national practice leader, information management services, and David Sharpe, manager of e-discovery, offer some key questions you should endeavour to answer while exploring solutions.
The IRS seems inherently incapable of finding emails. The most famous incident that everyone has heard about, and many have complained about, is the loss of emails of key witnesses in a Congressional investigation of the IRS tea party targeting scandal .
Writers in the information management space often speak of structured vs. unstructured data and then analyze documents as if they were “unstructured.” However, when documents are clustered by visual similarity, they are actually fairly structured within clusters, e.g., invoices, letters, and emails each have recurring attributes or data elements located in generally the same place in the documents in that cluster.
It is actually more accurate to say that documents are heterogeneously structured – once they are clustered into groups of visually-similar documents, there are recurring attributes or data elements in that group or cluster.
As the volume of discoverable data continues to increase, creating functional fact and issue timelines is more important than ever. During the early stages of litigation, timelines can help you develop eDiscovery strategies, identify collection sources, predict disputed facts and issues, and create a preliminary chronological relationship between case events. And as your case progresses, timelines can assist you when preparing for depositions, carrying out motion practice, and conducting trial, as well. Associating key documents with timeline events allows you to track the truly critical data in the increasingly murky sea of irrelevant emails and documents subject to discovery collection. Most importantly, a well managed fact timeline enables you to present the best case possible.
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.”
In Dynamo Holdings v. Comm’r , the IRS Commissioner sought to compel production of the contents of backup tapes containing at least several million documents. It objected to the producing parties’ request to use predictive coding to review them, calling it an “unproven technology.”
Intradeduping embedded emails involves identifying where earlier emails are included within or embedded in later emails. This is an iterative process starting with the smallest emails and continuing until the remaining emails are not embedded in or included in later emails. The idea is to set aside the embedded emails because they can be analyzed or reviewed while examining the longer inclusive emails.
Keeping up with the many comments and commentators in the data discovery and governance blogosphere can be quite challenging given the multitude of information, opinion and news blogs. This week’s cartoon and clip features a unique challenge to today’s bloggers (cartoon) and a non-all inclusive running list of approximately 30 recent and relevant eDiscovery and information governance related blog posts (clip).
The EDRM eDiscovery Maturity Self-Assessment Test (eMSAT-1) is a detailed downloadable Excel spreadsheet designed to help you assess your organization’s level of eDiscovery maturity and use that assessment to reach the level of maturity you deem appropriate for your organization.
Increasing volumes of electronically stored information (ESI) in litigation have created the need for highly specialized document management systems to organize and manage discovery review. Though litigation databases have existed for many years, there are more options than ever for legal professionals to choose from that can deliver faster and more cost effective document reviews. All this while still including the most advanced eDiscovery and case management functionality available.
There are some interesting observations about predictive coding’s “failure to launch”.Here are two recommendations that mitigate most if not all of the impediments to technology-enabled solutions: inordinate cost and unsatisfactory performance.
While every collection of emails varies, faceted deduplication, by itself, can achieve about 80% reduction in storage space used by emails and attachments.
The overall goal of a remediation program is to reduce the volume of objects that have to be managed and the level of resources required to manage them.
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 […]
Bad things tend to happen when lawyers delegate e-discovery responsibility to their clients. As all informed lawyers know, lawyers have a duty to actively supervise their client’s preservation. They cannot just turn a blind eye; just send out written notices and forget it. Lawyers have an even higher duty to manage discovery, including search and production of electronic evidence. They cannot just turn e-discovery over to a client and then sign the response to the request for production. The only possible exception proves the rule. If a client has in-house legal counsel, and if they appear of record in the case, and if the in-house counsel signs the discovery response, then, and only then, is outside counsel (somewhat) off the hook. Then they can lay back, a little bit, but, trust me, this almost never happens.
Believe it or not, it has been four years ago this past Saturday since we launched the eDiscovery Daily blog!
When we launched nearly four years ago on September 20, 2010, our goal was to be a daily resource for eDiscovery news and analysis. Now, we’ve done so for four years. We’ve lasted as long as many presidential administrations (and probably worked WAY more days). We hit over 300,000 visits to the site in May and, earlier this month published our 1,000th post! And, every post we have published is still available on the site for your reference, which has made eDiscovery Daily into quite a knowledgebase! We’re quite proud of that.
By now, it is common knowledge that an e-mail thread is generally organized with the oldest string of the communication at the end of the document, and the most recent string of the communication at the beginning of the document. It all makes good logical sense, right? The hidden Achilles Heel of e-discovery is a set of ESI that is not so orderly and coherent.
I do not normally want to high five Federal judges, but Judge Ronald Buch, a Tax Judge in Texas, sure deserved one after his Dynamo Holdings opinion.
The Lexbe eDiscovery Processing System (LEPS) converted the entire 53 GBs of the EDRM Enron Dataset, with 5 million page equivalents, into industry-standard TIFF images in only 5.3 hours. To accomplish this task in this short time, LEPS programmatically deployed and utilized over 60 parallel server instances, and maintained a sustained throughput rate of 240 GBs/day (23 Million pages/day) for Native to TIFF processing.
Keeping up with innovation in eDiscovery can be quite challenging given the various approaches, commentators and providers weighing in on each real or perceived innovation. This week’s cartoon and clip features a strategic approach to driving innovation (cartoon) and a non-all inclusive running listing of mergers, acquisitions and investments in the eDiscovery arena (clip).
In the absence of a black swan recently happening to you and your organization, how can you convince the powers that be that they should take some preventive and/or precautionary course of action to stave off a subsequent disaster? These questions have direct relevance to the matter of “selling” information governance to the C-suite in our increasingly Big Data world.
BR’s visual classification technology enables data management, analysis and governance tasks. BR technology automates the collection, reduction, classification and governance of large volumes of data. It is unique in the fact that it supports data in any file structure, format or type within one platform.
Federal judiciary officials on Tuesday approved proposed changes to court rules that could reshape how discovery is handled in civil litigation—for better or for worse, depending who you ask.
More than half of CEOs will have a senior “digital” leader role in their staff by the end of 2015, according to the 2014 CEO and Senior Executive Survey by Gartner, Inc. Gartner said that by 2017, one-third of large enterprises engaging in digital business models and activities will also have a digital risk officer (DRO) role or equivalent.