Technology assisted review has a transparency problem. Notwithstanding TAR’s proven savings in both time and review costs, many attorneys hesitate to use it because courts require “transparency” in the TAR process. Specifically, when courts approve requests to use TAR, they often set the condition that counsel disclose the TAR process they used and which documents they used for training. In some cases, the courts have gone so far as to allow opposing counsel to kibitz during the training process itself.
“The ability to earn trust must be part of any plan to implement artificial intelligence (AI) or smart machines, and will be an important selling point when marketing this technology. CIOs must be able to monitor smart machine technology for unintended consequences of public use and respond immediately, embracing unforeseen positive outcomes and countering undesirable ones.”
As we have reported in the past, the eDiscovery industry is still growing at an impressive rate. One recent market report estimated that the global eDiscovery market is forecast to reach $15.65 billion by 2020 . So, who is investing in the eDiscovery industry?
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.
83% of organizations are prioritizing structured data initiatives as critical or high priority in 2015, and 36% planning to increase their budgets for data-driven initiatives in 2015.
Preventing the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information in litigation is increasingly challenging. Technological advancements have ushered in varying mediums of information storage and exchange, such as email and social media, that thoroughly document confidential communications. Fortunately, innovation in eDiscovery technology combined with process and workflow improvements can help you meet the challenge of protecting privilege.
Lexbe’s Dual Index approach captures hidden office file text including headers, footers, comments, tracked changes, and notes. Additionally, Lexbe is able to index embedded text and other visuals to ensure that all of a documents data is made searchable for review.
Those practicing environmental law face unique litigation challenges in advocating on behalf of their clients. Rapidly growing collections of electronically stored information (ESI) present an increasingly large obstacle when taking on resource-rich private firms. Environmental attorneys can frequently find themselves taking on data-intensive cases that overwhelm existing document review and production capabilities.
Lexbe is able to offer free native ESI processing because of massively scalable server infrastructures and an integrated review platform. By eliminating processing costs and limiting your eDiscovery expenditure to hosting your review in the award winning Lexbe eDiscovery Platform, costs are not only drastically reduced but also predictable.
Legal Talk Network Producer Laurence Colletti interviews electronic evidence expert Craig Ball at the 2015 Winter Meeting of The Florida Bar. Ball discusses the limitations of electronic search tools and how lawyers need to move past the delusion of the right keywords yielding perfect results.
If you can spare less than a minute to learn about this impressive new technology, this is a 42-second animation that describes how visual classification works and how it can help your organization launch and complete classification-dependent initiatives like assigning retention and disposition schedules, file share remediation, archive digitization, content migration, and silo consolidation.
While there are legitimate concerns about finding IP in data, because data may be an inert lump of code, bits, or pieces of information, it is worthwhile to think about the different kinds of IP that arise in conjunction with and in the context of Big Data.
Intellectual Property litigation presents a number of unique discovery and review challenges for the involved attorneys, law firms, and in-house counsel, corporations and organizations. Legal issues can require analysis not only of patent, copyright and trademark law, but complex contract and joint venture, development and entity issues. Also modern IP cases often are international in scope. The subject matter being disputed in IP cases can be highly variable, with litigation spanning industries like biotechnology and pharmaceuticals to electronics manufacturing and advanced software algorithms.
With no user fees, case fees, or hidden costs, Lexbe eDiscovery Platform provides a litigation document management solution that allows corporate counsel to maintain control over discovery collections at a low and predictable monthly cost. Our web-based system can be accessed from any browser and across both PC and MAC operating systems to allow for fast, real-time collaboration between internal legal staff and outside counsel.
Founded in 2011 as DW Legal and based in Houston, TX, BeyondReview is a data-driven discovery services company that uses visual classification technology and expert review attorneys to deliver end-to-end discovery with power, precision and speed.
Lawyers, law firms, and companies engaged in securities litigation or securities fraud cases face a number of unique challenges. First, these cases typically involve many parties, custodians and documents — page counts can often be in the tens of millions. But these cases must still be prosecuted in standard court timeframes, so often a lot needs to be done in just a little bit of time.
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.
Frustrated Court Crafts “New and Simpler Approach to Discovery,” Identifies Search Terms to be Utilized by Plaintiff
In this breach of contract case, the court granted in part Defendant’s motion to compel and, in light of Plaintiff’s piecemeal production (which the court had earlier cautioned against) and other discovery failures, fashioned a “new and simpler approach” to discovery, including the identification of 13 search terms/phrases to be utilized when searching “ALL [of Plaintiff’s] corporate documents, files, communications, and recordings. . .”
“Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one.” VOLTAIRE In legal search you can never know exactly what recall level you have attained. You can only know a probable range of recall. For instance, you can never know that you have attained 80% recall, but you can know that you have attained between 70% and 90% recall. Even the range is a probable range, not certain. Exact knowledge of recall is impossible because there are too many documents in legal search to ever know for certain how many of them are relevant, and how many are irrelevant.
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.
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.
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.
eDiscovery and legal document management should be platform independent. Litigators should not need to inconvenience themselves with inefficient workarounds and incompatible software.