By Kamal Shah It’s always fun (and a bit humbling) to look back at predictions for the current year to see which were spot on and which missed the mark. In reexamining our own predictions for 2014 , several came to fruition in full effect: “The rise of SMACS,” “Enterprises regain control of encryption keys,” […]
Many times it’s the hidden assumptions, the ones that are never made explicit or never periodically confirmed, that can cause the most damage when they’re wrong. In Information Governance and Enterprise Content Management one of the most basic assumptions is that there is one logical document per file with electronic records, and one logical unit per physical document in the paper world. Wrong.
Daily we read, see and hear more and more about the increasing need for task effective and cost efficient eDiscovery and information governance technologies. This week’s cartoon and clip highlights one cost driver for these technologies (cartoon) and provides a podcast overview from the Legal Talk Network on potential issues and trends in these important markets (clip).
As lawyers, we hear a lot about the technological advances in e-discovery and information governance. How do you describe the current state of e-discovery from an opportunity and growth perspective, and how does this market opportunity impact the pulse rate of mergers, acquisitions, and investments? For lawyers purchasing e-discovery packages, there are several types of vendors and pricing models, and they need to be asking the right questions. What does the data governance solution need to do, how much does it cost, what are the time constraints, and how complex is the system?
Whether producing in Native, TIFF, PDF, or a blended format, discovery productions are fraught with potential challenges and obstacles that can foil your ability to meet deadlines and satisfy discovery requirements. Avoid common pitfalls and discover innovative solutions to flawlessly execute your production.
By Greg Buckles Amazon and Microsoft cloud storage and servers have driven the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for online data storage down into the 10-15¢/GB/month range depending on whether you need a dedicated, encrypted appliance or other special security for your sensitive data. The bottom line is that this has eDJ Group clients challenging […]
Electronic “predictive coding” devices that automate the “reading” of thousands of records for making production for electronic discovery, present such problems. The words and phrases in records require thousands, even millions of choices to be made as to issues of law and fact concerning relevance and privilege. “Predictive coding” is a document review technology that allows computers to predict particular document classifications (such as “responsive” or “privileged”) based upon coding decisions made by those knowledgeable as to the subject matter. In the context of electronic discovery, this technology can find key documents faster and with fewer human reviewers, thereby saving much time to conduct document review for finding relevant and potentially privileged documents. A detailed description of the use of predictive coding devices is found in, Dynamo Holdings Ltd. Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (U.S. Tax Court, Sept. 17, 2014), being a case that rejects the objection that predictive coding is “an unproven technology.”
Because so many documents are stored nowadays in electronic form, the expense of electronic discovery has become a major concern in litigation. To address this concern, vendors have developed technologies to search through large pools of electronically stored documents for material responsive to e-discovery requests efficiently and expeditiously. One such new technology is “predictive coding” – a technique that uses computers to assist with review of large volumes of documents. The United States Tax Court recently approved the use of predictive coding to respond to a large document request by the IRS.
In Pero v. Norfolk Southern Railway, Co., No. 3:14-CV-16-PLR-CCS, (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 1, 2014) , Tennessee Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr. granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery of a video declining to require the plaintiff to view the video at the defendant’s counsel’s office or obtain a license for the proprietary viewing software, ordering the defendant instead to either produce a laptop with the video loaded on it or to reimburse the plaintiff for the cost of a software license.
Looking for HTFD (Hard-to-Find-Data)? We Found It! Data is everywhere. The number of unique data sources out there is larger than any one organization can wrangle. And make no mistake – these big data sets are the source of competitive advantage for companies across all industries. But finding the right information from today’s huge data ecosystem is a hurdle that more than one marketer has yet to cross. We have all heard of Big Data, but how many of us have heard of Data-as-a-Service (or DaaS)?
Daily we read, see and hear more and more about the challenges associated with privacy regulation and liability. This week’s cartoon and clip highlights one public example of holiday related privacy violations (cartoon) and provides a link to an article on the increasing involvement of federal regulatory agencies in applying privacy law (clip).
ECM users sometimes feel like their heads are about to explode after trying to sift through all the irrelevant and redundant documents in their systems. If you or your users are repeatedly experiencing the ECM bends, it’s a sure sign that it’s time to weed out the irrelevant documents and the redundant copies of relevant content that are cluttering you system.
Review costs continue to be the dominant portion of discovery expenditure for corporate legal departments and law firms involved in large-scale litigation and government investigations. As the number of documents to be reviewed in any given case continues to grow exponentially, the time to review them has not. The challenge of finding cost-efficient solutions to complete large review assignments on time and within budget becomes more pressing each year. Outsourced managed review is a favored option in many large document cases to bring specialized review expertise and staffing to bear to handle large-scale productions, privilege review, redactions, and issue coding.
In Part One of this two-part post, I introduced readers to statistical problems inherent in proving the level of recall reached in a Technology Assisted Review (TAR) project. Specifically, I showed that the confidence intervals around an asserted recall percentage could be sufficiently large with typical sample sizes as to undercut the basic assertion used to justify your TAR cutoff.
In this Part Two, I will take a look at some of the other approaches people have put forward and see how they match up. However, as Maura Grossman and Gordon Cormack warned in “Comments on ‘The Implications of Rule 26(g) on the Use of Technology-Assisted Review’” and Bill Dimm amplified in a later post on the subject, there is no free lunch.
The US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) recently released a redacted Advisory Opinion dated November 13, 2014 that confirms for cloud-based software vendors (or Software as a Service providers) that allowing access to export controlled software for use only in the cloud (or on servers) does not constitute an export of that software to the user.
The ILTA 2014 Law Firm Tech Survey was just released. The International Legal Technology Association each year conducts a comprehensive survey of law firm technology. At 301 pages, the report is packed with information. I summarize here findings on practice support and the business of law that I find interesting; I also offer some comments. This survey is a Herculean effort and we should all applaud ILTA and the many volunteers and participants who make it possible.
EDRM , the leading standards organization for the e-discovery market, announced today the release of an updated Statistical Sampling Applied to Electronic Discovery . The release, published on the EDRM website, is open for public comment. At the conclusion of the public comment period on January 9, 2015, input will be reviewed and considered for incorporation before the updated materials are finalized. The updated materials provide guidance regarding the use of statistical sampling in e-discovery.
Different IG stakeholders look at ECM systems differently. IT may be primarily concerned with the resources it takes to store, access, and backup the ECM content and the time it takes for the system to respond to a query. They are apt to view the content in ECM as a given and use technology like block-level deduping to reduce the resources needed to manage the content. The acid test for end users is more likely, “Does the ECM help me find what I want quickly, and painlessly?”
As data continues to proliferate exponentially, businesses of all kinds are finding it more and more worthwhile to analyze that data so they can better pinpoint market opportunities, deliver greater value to their customers and improve the efficiency of their operations. But businesses need a lot of help gathering, integrating, analyzing and monetizing data on an increasingly massive scale.
Daily we read, see and hear more and more about the challenges associated with organizational and individual productivity in the world of social media. This week’s cartoon and clip highlights one proven technique for increasing social media productivity (cartoon) and several cool social media tools that may be useful for increasing social media productivity (clip).
Kroll just released conclusions and limited data from a short eDiscovery survey covering trends such as Predictive Coding (PC/TAR) use, Social Media, BYOD, the ‘Internet of Things’ and Security. With over 550 law firm and corporate respondents, Kroll has certainly managed to get a statistically significant sampling, though they were the first to acknowledge that their questions were very basic data points.
There’s no need to look any further than this week’s accidental tweet by Anthony Noto, the CFO of Twitter, to understand why social media can be a simultaneous blessing and curse for companies.
Review costs continue to be the dominant portion of discovery expenditure for firms involved in complex litigation. As the volume of documents to be reviewed in any given case continues to grow exponentially, the challenge of finding a cost-efficient solution to complete large review assignments become more pressing. In addition to the high direct costs of traditional staffing, firms feel the pain of hiring each new contract reviewer through added user fees, licensing costs, and increased overhead.