The core challenge of discovery is identifying information that is responsive but not privileged, achieved without undue burden or expense. There are multiple ways to approach the task, none optimal. The most labor-intensive method is called “linear human review,” where lawyers (for the most part) look at everything and cull responsive and privileged items.
Regularly we read, see and hear incredibly serious presentations and pontifications related to the theory, practice and business of electronic discovery. This week our cartoon and clip features a quick look at Rule 26(f) conference planning for a frivolous lawsuit (cartoon) and a quick reference link to a very serious retrospective listing of 26 eDiscovery-related cartoons (clip).
At this year’s Legal Tech, I once again had the honor of moderating the Judges Panel, on which Judge John Facciola (D.D.C., retired), Judge Andrew Peck (S.D.N.Y), Judge Frank Maas (S.D.N.Y), and Judge Elizabeth Laporte (N.D.Cal.) presented. This time, we had a provocative topic (or, perhaps –as Judge Peck put it–, a depressing one): “What’s Wrong with Discovery?” The judges had plenty of insight into why discovery has become risky and expensive, what causes attorney misconduct in discovery, and implications for access to justice. Below are ten highlights of that discussion.
Regularly we read, see and hear more and more about mergers, acquisitions, investments and investors in the business of electronic discovery. This week our cartoon and clip features an abstract look at investing in eDiscovery (cartoon) and two quick reference links that highlight merger, acquisition and investment activities from both an activity level and an investor level (clip).
Secretary Clinton will likely do unintentionally for the duty to preserve electronic records in controversy what Edward Snowden did intentionally for the very right to privacy from government surveillance that Secretary Clinton now claims: She may put it on the map—into the global, public tag cloud—in a big way.
In 2010, “predictive coding” or “computer-assisted review” was considered the next big thing in ediscovery, destined to replace linear review and keyword searching as the predominant methodology during document review. Fast forward 5 years and where are we? Has the “next big thing” arrived?
One advantage of using computer assisted review, for example, predictive coding, is that the computer does, in fact, examine all of the available evidence in a document. Unlike human reviewers, the computer sees all parts of the elephant and, as a result, consistently judges documents based on the full complement of information in them. Each of reviewer judgment used to train the system may be based on a sample of features, but the computer system aggregates all of these partial judgments and chooses the category that is most consistent with this aggregation of cues, rather than with any individual sample. As a result, the computer can be more consistent than the human reviewer who trains trains it. Under appropriate circumstances, this consistency further enhances the accuracy and reliability of computer assisted review.
Daily we read, see and hear more and more about the challenge and cost of managing email. This week our cartoon and clip features a metric highlighting one cost of email (cartoon) and four quick reference links to recent mentions of the potential impact of organizational email practices (clip).
There IS no recognized, established eDiscovery standards committee at this time. So be a cynical shopper with your educational budget. There is a new non-profit association called the Legal Technology Professionals Institute (LTPI) that has been formed by some of the early EDRM working group leaders along with an impressive list of industry veterans. Word is that they will formally kicking off in the next month or two with a handful new standards setting projects, and I look forward to covering their development.
In an opinion released yesterday, Judge Peck says that, in the years since Da Silva Moore, “the case law has developed to the point that it is now black letter law that where the producing party wants to utilize TAR for document review, courts will permit it.”
Daily we read, see and hear more and more about the challenge of information security for private and public sector organizations. This week’s cartoon and clip features one of the reasons information security is so important to organizational leaders (cartoon) and a quick reference link to one of the most current and comprehensive resources for actionable security-related intelligence for businesses and governments (clip).
The goal of eDiscovery is not to achieve certain measures but to effectively identify the responsive documents. I fear that measurement has become an end itself, rather than a means to effective eDiscovery. Perhaps worse, there is a risk that parties may use measurement as a weapon in eDiscovery, imposing unreasonable burdens for dubious value. It’s time to bring a little more rationality to our measurement methods in eDiscovery.
In 2015, astute ediscovery practitioners are looking for ways to take predictive coding to new heights using recall calculations. Ralph Losey, a leader in the e-discovery and predictive coding field, has devised a new approach to recall and precision accuracy measurement. What is this formula and how is it more effective than previous systems? In this episode of The ESI Report , Michele Lange interviews Ralph Losey about ei-Recall, a calculation he formulated for measuring the recall of electronic discovery processes. In a very comprehensible interview, Losey explains what recall and precision are in the e-discovery field.
Daily we read, see and hear more and more about the role and responsibility of technology in the practice and management of medicine. This week’s cartoon and clip highlights the promise of technology in the practice of medicine (cartoon) and provides links to six interesting articles related to the management of medical information and technology (clip).
Much has been written about how to use advanced tools to select and produce electronic discovery. However, for every producing party there is a requesting party that has to review and analyze the produced documents. While producing parties have detailed knowledge about what was searched, the limitations of any tools used, and the criteria used for selection, requesting parties lack this insight. They have to get a handle on what was in the current production and ideally compare productions from the same party in related matters or compare productions from comparable litigation. The Equalizer: Visual Classification.
This new technology overview provides a detailed explanation of new visual classification technology. It is written for information governance technologists and practitioners who want to advise clients on the current state-of-the-art technology for document classification and management. It is also profitable for information governance stakeholders who want to undertake document-related information governance initiatives without the restrictions and limitations of text-constrained technologies.
Many people are realizing that they have to change the way they work. And tools like technology assisted review are changing the way attorneys work. But it’s not going to replace them. TAR tools can quickly analyze millions of documents for subtle patterns, but only humans can decide what’s important to the case, or what stories the documents can tell. So these systems are hybrids: The machines do what they do best, and the humans do what they do best. There will be plenty of work to go around for skilled practitioners who know the tools and have the right skillsets.
Daily we read, see and hear more and more about the impact new technologies can make on the practice of information governance (IG) and eDiscovery (EDD). This week’s cartoon and clip highlights the simplicity of many of these new IG and EDD offerings (cartoon) and provides quick links to two new overviews that highlight technologies that are changing the way legal and IT professionals think about the practice of IG and EDD (clip).
Today, New York-based private equity investor Spire Capital is announcing a $30 million investment in Lighthouse eDiscovery, money that will be used to cash out some of the early investors as well as provide growth capital for an East Coast data center and European expansion. As a result of the financing, Sean White of Spire Capital has joined the board.
This is the third in a three-part series of “Throwback Thursday” posts that highlight ideas and opinions of announcements and reports from eDiscovery times past. These posts provide legal technology professionals an opportunity to consider current eDiscovery activities through the lens of yesterday’s thoughts.
Daily we read, see and hear more and more about the challenges associated with identifying, evaluating and selecting technologies and providers to support information governance initiatives. This week’s cartoon and clip highlights the difficulty of selecting appropriate offerings (cartoon) and provides a link to a short list of 100 information governance enablers (clip).
A colleague recently asked me to list 10 electronic data discovery errors lawyers make with distressing regularity. Here’s that list, along with suggestions to avoid making them.
here’s something like 50,000 law firms in the United States. The digital age has created new challenges for them in the form of inordinate numbers of electronic documents, as well as new technologies that solution providers can bring to that extremely lucrative market.