In a March 31 issue paper, the commission says it is studying the role played by unregulated legal service providers (LSPs) in the delivery of legal services. The commission explains that it is “gathering data on the spectrum of services that these unregulated LSP entities provide to the public and eliciting feedback on whether the public would benefit if state judicial authorities develop new regulatory structures for these entities.” Continue reading →
An old friend called me recently to talk about a beef he had with his e-discovery provider. “What’s up?” I asked when I realized who it was. He told me he thought he had done everything right in setting up his last e-discovery project. He sent out an RFP to several vendors, asked all the right questions and then picked the bidder with the lowest per-gigabyte price to host the documents. Everything seemed like it was on track.
“So what’s wrong with that,” I asked. “You went for the low bidder and locked them in with an ironclad contract. Getting hosting for that kind of per-gigabyte price seems like a steal.”
My friend sighed in response. “What happened was that I didn’t read the fine print.”Continue reading →
Litigators have long relied on folders to manage electronic case documents. Typically, we build and manage these folders manually. But Catalyst Insight’s Search Folders feature lets users build folders that organize documents dynamically based on field data, full-text searches or both.
The Dynamic Search Folders feature is a powerful tool for early case assessment, review or even production. In this short video, Catalyst’s founder and CEO John Tredennick demonstrates how it works.
In a recent post here, we noted that Britain’s High Court of Justice had approved the use of technology assisted review, becoming the first case to do so in the United Kingdom and only the second case outside the U.S. to approve TAR.
These two non-U.S. decisions approving TAR are significant in and of themselves. But they are also notable for another reason. They show that “e-discovery isn’t just for Americans anymore,” as my friend and former colleague David Horrigan tells Legaltech News in an article published this week. Continue reading →
Litigants in federal court are expected to cooperate with each other in developing a discovery plan. As part of such a plan, it is increasingly common for parties to stipulate to the search terms they will use to search their electronically stored information for documents that are relevant to the dispute. But to what extent does a search stipulation create an obligation to produce the documents that contain matching terms? Does the stipulation create a de facto requirement to produce all matching documents?
That was the argument made by the plaintiffs in a motion to compel recently decided in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut. The parties had agreed to a list of search terms to be used by the defendant in its search of emails from 23 custodians. When defendant ran the search, it returned 38,000 matching documents. Continue reading →
In the user interface (UI) and user experience (UX) world, one of the ways people design successful software is through the creation of a “mental model” of the underlying processes. Mental models have been around since the 1940s and used for different processes but the concept caught hold in software because it gave designers a framework to understand user needs and the problems they were trying to solve.
According to one of the pioneers of Internet usability, Jacob Neilson, “mental models are one of the most important concepts in human-computer interaction.” We use them to inform our software design and we wanted to share one that we created to model the e-discovery process. Continue reading →
I have noticed that in certain popular document-based systems in the e-discovery marketplace, there is a feature (a capability) that often gets touted. Although I am a research scientist at Catalyst, I have been on enough sales calls with my fellow Catalyst team members to have heard numerous users of document-based systems ask whether or not we have the capability to automatically remove common headers and footers from email. There are document-based systems that showcase this capability as a feature that is good to have, so clients often include it in the checklist of capabilities that they’re seeking.
This leads me to ask: Why?
For the longest time, this request confused me. It was a capability that many have declared that they need, because they saw that it existed elsewhere. That leads me to want to discuss the topic of holistic thinking when it comes to one’s technology assisted review (TAR) algorithms and processes. Continue reading →
Happy holidays to all of our readers and best wishes for amazing discoveries in the New Year!
Catalyst designs, builds and hosts the world’s fastest and most powerful document repositories for large-scale discovery and regulatory compliance. We back our technology with a highly skilled Professional Services team and a global partner network to ensure the best e-discovery experience possible.