How does one reviewer do the work of 48? It may sound like a riddle, but a new infographic created by Catalyst illustrates the answer.
The question the infographic poses is this: In a review of 723,537 documents, how many reviewers would you need to finish in five days?
The answer depends on whether you are using an early version of technology assisted review (TAR 1.0) or a new-generation TAR 2.0 version. Continue reading
It is difficult to pin down precise numbers on how much companies spend on e-discovery. A 2010 survey prepared for the Duke Conference on Civil Litigation found that the average company paid $621,880 to $3 million per case and that companies at the high end paid $2.4 million to $9.8 million per case. A RAND study put the cost at a median of $1.8 million per case.
What we do know for certain is that e-discovery costs continue to rise as data continues to become more voluminous and complex. According to RAND, roughly 70 percent of e-discovery costs are attributable to document review. Continue reading
You may recall that, in an opinion issued last August, Hyles v. New York City, U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck denied the plaintiff’s request to force the defendant to use technology assisted review instead of keywords to search for relevant documents and emails. Now, another court has followed suit, similarly concluding that it was without legal authority to force a party to use a particular method of e-discovery search.
In the Aug. 1 Hyles decision, attorneys for Pauline Hyles, a black female who is suing the city for workplace discrimination, had sought to force the city to use TAR, arguing it would be more cost efficient and effective than keyword searches. But even though Judge Peck agreed with Hyles’ attorneys “that in general, TAR is cheaper, more efficient and superior to keyword searching,” he concluded that the party responding to a discovery request is best situated to choose its methods and technologies and that he was without authority to force it to use TAR. Continue reading
Not only are more companies using technology assisted review, but they are using it in a much broader range of matters, concludes the 12th annual Litigation Trends Survey by the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright.
The proportion of respondents using TAR increased from 57 percent in 2015 to 60 percent this year, the survey finds. In the U.S., two-thirds of all companies use TAR, whereas 46 percent of UK companies use it.
More significantly, of the companies that are using TAR, they are using it for more of their matters, with 29 percent using it in half or more of their matters. Continue reading
With law students having recently returned to classrooms throughout the U.S., we thought we’d do something a bit different with our weekly Ask Catalyst feature. We’re interviewing Patty Daly, Catalyst’s managing director of training, about Catalyst’s Student Search & ECA Practicum, a first-of-its-kind e-discovery learning program that gives law students hands-on experience using an e-discovery application. Bob Ambrogi, Catalyst’s director of communications, conducts the interview. Continue reading
Escalating enforcement of anti-corruption laws around the world is driving chief compliance and risk officers to find smarter and more effective ways to monitor compliance programs, and a key way they are doing that is through data analytics, reports Jaclyn Jaeger at Compliance Week (subscription required but free trial available).
But because most compliance departments do not have bottomless budgets, “the wise ones are piggy-backing off technology their companies already employ — like technology-assisted review,” Jaeger writes.
She quotes Mark Noel, managing director of professional services at Catalyst: “People are learning that the same techniques that we use with e-discovery translate and apply to compliance searches.” Continue reading
Two years ago, U.S. Tax Court Judge Ronald L. Buch broke new ground when he became the first judge to formally sanction the use of technology assisted review in the Tax Court. In Dynamo Holdings Limited Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Judge Buch said that TAR “is an expedited and efficient form of computer-assisted review that allows parties in litigation to avoid the time and costs associated with the traditional, manual review of large volumes of documents.”
After receiving Judge Buch’s permission, the petitioners went on to use a TAR process and to use the results of that process to respond to the IRS commissioner’s discovery requests. Earlier this year, believing the response to be incomplete, the commissioner served a new set of discovery requests. When petitioners objected, the commissioner filed a motion to compel, thus bringing the TAR issue before Judge Buch a second time. Continue reading
[Editor’s note: This is another post in our “Ask Catalyst” series, in which we answer your questions about e-discovery search and review. To learn more and submit your own question, go here.]
We received this question:
We are halfway through a document review. It is taking us longer than we anticipated and we are running short on time. We are considering using technology assisted review to help expedite the remainder of the project. Our question is whether it would make sense to start using TAR at this stage.
Today’s question is answered by Bob Ambrogi, director of communications. Continue reading
A small company made big news in the e-discovery world last week when it filed a series of patent infringement lawsuits against kCura, developer of the Relativity search and review platform, and several of kCura’s partners, alleging violation of a patent for concept-based visual presentation of search results.
In addition to kCura, the plaintiff, Blackbird Technologies, has filed separate lawsuits against Innovative Discovery, UnitedLex Corporation, System One Holdings, Advanced Discovery, Xact Data Services, TransPerfect, LDiscoveryand EvD Inc. (now a subsidiary of Ubic.) The lawsuits were all filed June 7 in the U.S. District Court in Delaware. Continue reading
Here at Catalyst, we get a lot of good questions about e-discovery technology. And we answer every question we get. Whether the question comes from a client, a webinar attendee, or anyone else, we make sure it gets answered.
And we have some really smart people who answer the questions. That’s not to brag, it’s just a statement of fact. We have one of the world’s leading information retrieval scientists. We have the lawyer who was lead e-discovery counsel in the first contested case to win approval for the use of technology assisted review. We have another former litigator who also started his own e-discovery software company. We have a staff brimming with highly experienced technology and litigation-support experts of all kinds. Continue reading