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 →
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.
Readers 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 →
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 →
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.