One of the most frequently discussed trends in this year’s annual thought leader interviews that we conducted was the application of analytics (including predictive analytics) to Information Governance. A recent report published in the Richmond Journal of Law & Technology addresses how analytics can be used to optimize Information Governance.
I’ve recently worked with a couple of clients who proposed search terms for key individuals that were a bit limited, so I thought this was an appropriate topic to revisit. When looking for documents in your collection that mention key individuals, conducting a name search for those individuals isn’t always as straightforward as you might think. There are potentially a number of different ways names could be represented and if you don’t account for each one of them, you might fail to retrieve key responsive documents – OR retrieve way too many non-responsive documents. Here are some considerations for conducting name searches.
Today’s thought leader is Ralph Losey. Ralph is an attorney in private practice with the law firm of Jackson Lewis, LLP, where he is a Shareholder and the firm's National e-Discovery Counsel. Ralph is also a prolific author of eDiscovery books and articles, the principal author and publisher of the popular e-Discovery Team® Blog, founder and owner of an online training program, e-Discovery Team Training, with attorney and technical students all over the world, founder of the new Electronic Discovery Best Practices (EDBP) lawyer-centric work flow model. Ralph is also the publisher of LegalSearchScience.com and PreSuit.com on predictive coding methods and applications.
Today’s thought leader is Jason R. Baron. An internationally recognized speaker and author on the preservation of electronic documents, Jason is a member of Drinker Biddle’s Information Governance and eDiscovery practice. Jason previously served as Director of Litigation for the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and as trial lawyer and senior counsel at the Department of Justice. He was a founding co-coordinator of the National Institute of Standards and Technology TREC Legal Track, a multi-year international information retrieval project devoted to evaluating search issues in a legal context. He also founded the international DESI (Discovery of Electronically Stored Information) workshop series, bringing together lawyers and academics to discuss cutting-edge issues in eDiscovery.
Today’s thought leader is Laura Zubulake. Laura worked on Wall Street for 20 years in institutional equity departments and, in 1991, authored the book The Complete Guide to Convertible Securities Worldwide. She was the plaintiff in the Zubulake vs. UBS Warburg case, which resulted in several landmark opinions related to eDiscovery and counsel’s obligations for the preservation of electronically stored information. The December 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were influenced, in part, by the Zubulake case. In 2012, Laura published a book titled Zubulake's e-Discovery: The Untold Story of my Quest for Justice, previously discussed on this blog and she speaks professionally about eDiscovery topics and her experiences related to the case.
Today’s thought leader is Brad Jenkins of CloudNine Discovery. Brad has over 20 years of experience as an entrepreneur, as well as 15 years leading customer focused companies in the litigation support arena. Brad also writes the Litigation Support Industry Blog, which covers news about litigation support and eDiscovery companies' funding activities, acquisitions & mergers and notable business successes. He has authored several articles on document management and litigation support issues, and has appeared as a speaker before national audiences on document management practices and solutions. He’s also my boss!
In just a few days, there will be big happenings in the New York area! No, I’m not talking about the big game, I’m talking about the biggest legal technology event of the year, LegalTech New York (LTNY). If you’re going to be attending the conference this year (and, if not, why not?), here is a session that is a “must attend” for anyone who wants to know leading judges’ perspectives on eDiscovery rules changes and best practices.
As we noted on Thursday and Friday, eDiscoveryDaily published 78 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases! Friday, we looked back at cases related to production format disputes, search disputes and technology assisted review. Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to proportionality and the first half of the cases related to sanctions (yes, there were that many).
As we noted yesterday, eDiscoveryDaily published 78 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases! Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to admissibility and eDiscovery cost reimbursement. Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to production format disputes, search disputes and technology assisted review.
In Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Giannoulias, Illinois District Judge John F. Grady resolved several motions regarding discovery proceedings in a $114 million lawsuit. Two of the motions concerned search terms for documents and electronically stored information (ESI), in which the plaintiff opposed the defendants’ request for six additional terms to be included in retrieving discovery documents. The court ruled that four additional search terms would be added, while two would be excluded.
It’s that time of year, where people make predictions for the coming year for all sorts of things, including electronic discovery trends for the coming year. Though I have to say, I’ve seen fewer predictions this year than in past years. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to offer some of my own predictions. If they turn out right, you heard it here first!
A couple of weeks ago, we discussed budget calculators available from the Metrics section of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) web site and, two days later, began a review of the budget calculators, beginning with the E-Discovery Cost Estimator for Processing and Review workbook provided by Julie Brown at Vorys law firm. Today, we will continue our review of the calculators with a look at the Doc Review Cost Calculator.
Remember when we raised the question as to whether it is time to ditch the per hour model for document review? One of the cases we highlighted for perceived overbilling was ruled recently.
I frequently get asked how big does an ESI collection need to be to benefit from eDiscovery technology. In a recent case with one of my clients, the client had a fairly small collection – only about 4 GB. But, when a judge ruled that they had to start conducting depositions in a week, they needed to review that data in a weekend. Without the ability to cull the data and using OnDemand® to manage the linear review, they would not have been able to make that deadline. So, they clearly benefited from the use of eDiscovery technology in that case. But, if you’re not facing a tight deadline, how large does your collection need to be for the use of eDiscovery technology to provide benefits?
A while back, we talked about how the average number of pages in each gigabyte is approximately 50,000 to 75,000 pages and that each gigabyte effectively culled out can save $18,750 in review costs. But, did you know just how widely the number of pages per gigabyte can vary?
Today is Halloween. Every year at this time, because (after all) we’re an eDiscovery blog, we try to “scare” you with tales of eDiscovery horrors. So, I have one question: Are you scared yet?
As we discussed back in July, attorneys representing lead plaintiff Monique Da Silva Moore and five other employees filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court arguing that New York Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck, who approved an eDiscovery protocol agreed to by the parties that included predictive coding technology, should have recused himself given his previous public statements expressing strong support of predictive coding. Earlier this month, on October 7, that petition was denied by the Supreme Court.
As emails are sent out to multiple custodians, deduplication (or “deduping”) has become a common practice to eliminate multiple copies of the same email or file from the review collection, saving considerable review costs and ensuring consistency by not having different reviewers apply different responsiveness or privilege determinations to the same file. Everyone who works in electronic discovery knows what “deduping” is. But how many of you know what “reduping” is?
The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) has become the standard model for the workflow of the process for handling electronically stored information (ESI) in discovery. But, to succeed in discovery, regardless whether you’re the producing party or the receiving party, it might be helpful to think about the EDRM model backwards.
Remember when we raised the question as to whether it is time to ditch the per hour model for document review? One of the cases we highlighted for perceived overbilling was ruled upon last month. In the case In re Citigroup Inc. Securities Litigation, New York District Judge Sidney H. Stein rejected as unreasonable the plaintiffs’ lead counsel’s proffered blended rate of more than $400 for contract attorneys—more than the blended rate charged for associate attorneys—most of whom were tasked with routine document review work.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog