Category Archives: Uncategorized

Ask Catalyst: If I Use Outside Docs to Train the TAR Algorithm, Do I Risk Exposing Them to My Opponent?

[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:blog_john_and_tom

Does using documents from other matters to gain intelligence [train the algorithm] run the risk of exposing that data if opposing counsel requests the training set?

Today’s question is answered by John Tredennick, founder and CEO, and Thomas Gricks, managing director of professional services.

Continue reading

Ask Catalyst (Video Edition): How Does TAR Work and Why Does It Matter?

[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.]  

John TredennickThis week’s question:

How does technology assisted review work and why does TAR matter for legal professionals?

In a special video edition of Ask Catalyst, today’s question is answered by John Tredennick, founder and CEO.

Continue reading

Latest ABA Technology Survey Provides Insights on E-Discovery Trends

Catalyst_Blog_ABA_ReportThe number of law firms involved in cases requiring e-discovery rose in 2016, but many of those firms are failing to use advanced e-discovery technologies or even any e-discovery technology.

These are among the findings of the recently released 2016 Legal Technology Survey Report conducted by the American Bar Association’s Legal Technology Resource Center. The survey examines legal technology usage in a number of areas of law practice, including e-discovery. Continue reading

Data Analytics and the Changing Face of Corporate Compliance

DataEscalating 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

A Discussion About Dynamo Holdings: Is 43% Recall Enough?

blog_john_and_tomIn September 2014, Judge Ronald L. Buch became the first to sanction the use of technology assisted review (aka predictive coding) in the U.S. Tax Court. See Dynamo Holdings Limited Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 143 T.C. No. 9. We mentioned it here.

This summer, Judge Buch issued a follow-on order addressing the IRS commissioner’s objections to the outcome of the TAR process, which we chronicled here. In that opinion, he affirmed the petitioner’s TAR process and rejected the commissioner’s challenge that the production was not adequate. In doing so, the judge debunked what he called the two myths of review, namely that human review is the “gold standard” or that any discovery response is or can be perfect. Continue reading

Catalyst’s Chief Scientist Questions Validity of Patent Case Against kCura

Jeremey Pickens

Jeremey Pickens

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

How Many Documents in a Gigabyte: 2016 Edition

How_Many_DocsReaders of our blog will know that I have a continuing interest in answering the perennial e-discovery question: “How many native documents are in a gigabyte?” I started thinking about this in 2011 and published my first article on the subject based on analysis of 18 million files. Challenging industry assumptions, which ran from 5,000 to as many as 15,000, I concluded that the average across all files—based on that sample—was closer to 2,500. Continue reading

Perlman: ABA Future Commission Not Out to Regulate ‘Entire Legal Tech Industry’

ABA_Future_CommissionThe ABA’s Commission on the Future of Legal Services is not out to regulate the entire legal technology industry, its vice-chair Andrew Perlman told me today.

Perlman, the dean of Suffolk University Law School in Boston, was addressing concerns I raised in a post here yesterday about whether the commission is looking at regulating e-discovery companies and other companies that provide products and services to the legal industry. Continue reading

Is the ABA Looking to Regulate E-Discovery Companies?

blog_judge_robeA request for comments from the American Bar Association’s Commission on the Future of Legal Services is raising the question of whether the ABA will call for regulation of e-discovery companies.

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

Gigabyte Expansion in E-Discovery Hosting: You Get What You Pay for; You Pay for What You Get

Catalyst_Blog_Gigabyte_ExpansionAn 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