Close
Enter your
text here

Analysis

What Can Big Data Analytics Do? Rewrite History: eDiscovery Trends

One amusing plotline in the 1998 movie Shakespeare in Love (a terrific movie even though, IMHO, it shouldn’t have beaten out Saving Private Ryan for best picture that year – just sayin’) was the rivalry between young Will Shakespeare and fellow playwright Christopher Marlowe.  Shakespeare has become world renowned for centuries, while Marlowe has become largely forgotten (at least by the general public).  But now, Marlowe is being credited as a co-author in all three “Henry VI” plays (Parts 1, 2 and 3).  Says who?  Big Data Analytics.

In the Washington Post article Big debate about Shakespeare finally settled by big data: Marlowe gets his due by Travis M. Andrews, the author reports that, for the first time and with a bit of help from computers and big data, the Oxford University Press will add Marlowe as a co-author in all three “Henry VI” plays.

Though the two were rivals, scholars have long thought Shakespeare might have collaborated with Marlowe, among other contemporary writers as playwriting back then was “structured much the way scriptwriting is today — an author received an advance to write an outline, then the theater that owned the outline would hire different writers to fill in different parts, depending on what they wrote well.”

To find out if collaboration occurred, 23 international scholars performed text analysis by scanning through Marlowe’s (and other contemporary writers’) works, creating computerized data sets of the words and phrases he would repeat, along with how he did so — all of the idiosyncrasies that comprise one’s writing. Once they had a solid sample set of unique patterns, the New York Times reported, they cross-referenced it with Shakespeare’s plays.

The result? Seventeen of 44 of Shakespeare’s works probably had some sort of input from others. The three “Henry VI” plays proved to have enough of Marlowe’s literary footprint that his name deserved to be added as a co-author, Gary Taylor, a professor at Florida State University and one of the editors who led the research contended.

“We have been able to verify Marlowe’s presence in those three plays strongly and clearly enough,” Taylor told the Guardian. “We can now be confident that they didn’t just influence each other, but they worked with each other. Rivals sometimes collaborate.”

Of course, not everybody agreed with that assessment – one scholar suggested Shakespeare might have worked with the actors who were close to Marlowe and picked up his tendencies that way.

Regardless, it is certainly one interesting example of what big data analytics can do.  If only Marlowe’s attorney had that information a few centuries ago – he could have had a heck of an IP infringement case!  :o)

So, what do you think?  Do you see possibilities for big data analytics in your organization?  Maybe you could change your history!  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

In This Election Season, Contested Elections May Require eDiscovery to Sort Out the Results: eDiscovery Trends

Remember the 2000 Presidential election and all of the issues and headaches that resulted from punch card “butterfly” ballots and “hanging chads” down in Florida?  These days, electronic ballots are more popular.  However, using those electronic ballots doesn’t solve all problems and, if there are disputes, there may be a need for eDiscovery professionals to sort out the results.

This article on Legaltech News (For 2016 Election, Electronic Voting and Discovery May Collide on Complex Terrain, written by Ricci Dipshan) discusses the issues and concerns over this year’s elections and the possibility that eDiscovery may be necessary to evaluate the process.  Certainly, we’ve already seen concerns about the fairness of the process already.  “Both sides of the aisle during the primary were certainly talking about rigged elections, and that talk does continue,” notes Mary Mack, executive director for the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS).

These days, Florida uses a mix of paper ballots and touch-screen direct recording electronic (DRE) voting systems, but the DRE voting machines aren’t perfect.  According to data from Verified Voting Foundation, Florida is one of 15 states where some or all of the DRE machines used in elections do not have a voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT), a printed paper record of a vote that the voter immediately reviews and keeps with election officials.

The accuracy of the DRE voting machines was at issue in a 2006 Florida congressional seat race (why do these always seem to happen in Florida?) where the losing candidate filed a complaint with Florida’s 2nd Judicial Circuit court, alleging that DRE voting machine malfunctions contributed to an undervote of 18,000 ballots and therefore swung the election.  She requested expedited discovery access to the hardware, software and source code of the county’s DRE machines, but the defendants which included state and county officials, refused, evoking ES&S’s trade-secret privilege under Florida’s evidence law.  The judge upheld the privilege and denied the motion for discovery.

“I certainly understand the need to protect trade secrets, but there are methods that we use in litigation to protect trade secrets,” Mack said. “There’s actually a discipline called software forensics, where somebody who is trained can go in and explain what the code is doing. Software forensics is mostly used in patent cases and intellectual property cases, but it could certainly also be used here.”

DRE machines also keep event logs that track activity for each DRE voting machine and could help identify machine malfunctions.  And, as you probably know if you’ve ever voted in any election for government officials, protocols and procedures play an important part too.

In an effort to support these protocols, ACEDS has sent a formal letter to the National Association of Secretaries of States, offering help in the form of “witnesses, collection people, and experts,” Mack said, adding that as the effort is not centralized, “members will be calling into their local county organizations, so I expect that in certain places we will be engaged.”  ACEDS is also currently researching whether it can offer technology, including traditional eDiscovery software and hashing tools to help election workers as well.

While no secretary of state has taken ACEDS up on its offer yet, there is still time.  “For me, [it would be] a wonderful thing if we prepared to do this and then don’t need to”, said Mack.

So, what do you think?  Will we need eDiscovery to sort out election result disputes this November?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Considering All of the Considered TAR Responses: eDiscovery Trends

Our webinar panel discussion conducted by ACEDS a couple of weeks ago has generated some interesting discussion and debate over the past week or so about the content of the webinar, what it should have covered and what it was intended to cover.

The webinar panel discussion, titled How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery was sponsored by CloudNine and presented on August 10 (here is a link to last week’s blog post with an embedded video of the webinar).  Our panel discussion provided an overview of eDiscovery automation technologies and we took a hard look at the technology and definition of TAR and potential limitations associated with both.  Mary Mack, Executive Director of ACEDS moderated the discussion and I was one of the panelists, along with Bill Dimm, CEO of Hot Neuron and Bill Speros, Evidence Consulting Attorney with Speros & Associates, LLC.

On the next day, ACEDS published A Considered Response from Gordon Cormack, which was a letter from Gordon Cormack, Professor with the School of Computer Science at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada who is an expert in the area of technology-assisted review in litigation and has co-authored several influential works with Maura Grossman, a fellow researcher at the University of Waterloo (and, before that, an attorney with Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz).  Cormack and Grossman authored the 2011 Richmond Journal of Law and Technology (JOLT) study (that I inaccurately referred to in the webinar as a “white paper” – sorry about that) titled Technology-Assisted Review in E-Discovery Can Be More Effective and More Efficient Than Exhaustive Manual Review, which was discussed to some extent during the webinar that both Cormack and Grossman attended.

In his letter, Dr. Cormack expressed several concerns about the content of the webinar, including their belief “that the webinar presented the false impression that we, and the courts, are resting on our laurels and that no legitimate empirical work has been done with respect to TAR.”  He provided links to several other works that have been authored by Cormack and Grossman that were not discussed during the webinar and also noted his opinion that the webinar lacked “any constructive suggestion as to how to proceed” (among other concerns he noted).

Then, last week, ACEDS also published responses from two of the presenters, Bill Speros (Reconsidering Dr. Cormack’s Considered Response) and Bill Dimm (ACEDS Commentary: Bill Dimm Responds to Gordon Cormack) where both “Bills” (Speros and Dimm) provided responses to the concerns that Dr. Cormack raised in his letter the previous week.

I feel that both Speros and Dimm made several good points in both clarifying the intended scope of the webinar and also in what we feel the webinar accomplished.  Dimm noted that “our goal was to deliver a large amount of information that is useful to a broad e-discovery audience within the confines of a 60-minute webinar” (of which about 40 minutes were devoted to TAR) and that we covered the JOLT report as extensively as we did (instead of other Cormack/Grossman works) “because it is the study that judicial opinions rely upon, and we’re not aware of any subsequent study comparing the quality (not merely the cost) of TAR results to those of human review.”

Speros identified several constructive suggestions that we felt the webinar provided, including “Clarifying the (general lack of) judicial acceptance of TAR”, “Differentiating alternative TAR techniques and technologies” and “Developing independent and valid TAR assessments”.  Speros also noted that “rather than attacking Dr. Cormack and his work, the webinar’s content spoke to the quality of the court’s interpretations [of the JOLT report] in a manner entirely consistent with thoughtful and professional analysis” – a position with which I agree wholeheartedly.

So, what is my response to Dr. Cormack’s letter?

As the other presenter in the webinar, I don’t have much to add to the responses provided by Speros and Dimm, except that they essentially reflect my own thoughts about the intent and accomplishments of the webinar.  Our goal was to challenge several industry-accepted assumptions about TAR and to take a look at the current state of acceptance of TAR, both judicially and within organizations contemplating the use of TAR.  And, I feel we accomplished that.

Nonetheless, I have tremendous respect, not just for my co-presenters, but also for Gordon Cormack and Maura Grossman and the numerous contributions that they have made to the industry through their research and various works (including the 2011 JOLT report).  I consider this to be a healthy discussion and debate among industry thought leaders and look forward to hopefully seeing that healthy discussion and debate continue.  I encourage you to view the webinar and read the commentaries by Cormack, Speros and Dimm and draw your own conclusions.

So, what do you think?  Do you have an opinion on the webinar or on the topic of TAR in general?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

There’s a New TAR Case Law Primer Published by The Sedona Conference: eDiscovery Best Practices

One of the major topics discussed during last month’s panel discussion at The Masters Conference and also last week during our ACEDS webinar was the debate over the current state of judiciary acceptance of technology assisted review (TAR).  Whether intentional or not, to help with that debate The Sedona Conference® has just published the Public Comment Version of a new TAR Case Law Primer.

This was a project of The Sedona Conference Working Group on Electronic Document Retention and Production (WG1).  As noted in the Preface of the Primer, it is “the product of more than a year of development and dialogue within WG1. It was originally conceived as a chapter of a larger Commentary on the use of TAR in civil litigation, but the rapid development of the case law, the volume of court decisions, and the importance of those decisions in shaping legal practice in real time required that an exposition of the case law be made available on a faster timetable than WG1’s usual dialogue and consensus-building process allowed. For that reason, the Primer strives to present the case law in as neutral a fashion as possible. It avoids making any recommendations regarding particular TAR methodologies, nor does it propose any principles, guidelines, or best practices for TAR application, independent of those suggested by the courts themselves.”

The 33 page PDF file covers several topics related to Technology Assisted Review, including:

  • Da Silva Moore: Obviously as the first case to authorize the use of TAR, Judge Andrew Peck’s Da Silva Moore ruling merits its own section as a logical starting point, with the advantages of TAR and the emphasis on process (including advice to “follow the Sedona Cooperation Proclamation model”);
  • Other Courts’ Encouragement of the Use of TAR and Additional Cases Reflecting the Parties’ Use of TAR: The Primer touches on other cases where the use of TAR was either encouraged or used;
  • Disputed Issues Regarding TAR: This is the significant portion of the Primer, touching on issues ranging from efforts by requesting parties (and by courts) to compel the use of TAR, two contradictory decisions about whether it’s OK to switch to TAR in the middle of discovery, cases that address the appropriateness of using search terms to cull the document population before applying TAR, issues associated with disclosure of seed/training/validation sets and advance court approval of the use of TAR (such as the Dynamo Holdings case, which recently had another significant opinion about the results of the TAR process, despite cooperation between the parties).

The Primer also provides a review of evolving views of TAR and the state of international adoption, with discussion of both the Pyrrho Investments and Brown v BCA Trading cases.  The final section is an Index of Cases (at least those covered in the Primer).

The Conclusion section (just before the Index of Cases) offers this conclusion:

“While the case law reflects a broad consensus that TAR is an acceptable search and review methodology, certain issues regarding the details of its use remain unresolved. The general principles set forth in the cases discussed in this Primer should provide useful guidance to courts and parties seeking to use TAR to achieve the goals of Federal Rule 1 (the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of legal proceedings) and Rule 26(b)(1) (proportionality). The Bench and Bar should continue to actively monitor research and case law developments in this area.”

You can download the Primer here.  The Sedona Conference encourages Working Group Series members and others to spread the word and share this link so they can get comments in before the public comment period closes on October 15, 2016 (consider the word spread!). Questions and comments regarding the Primer may be sent to comments@sedonaconference.org.

So, what do you think? What do you consider to be the state of judicial acceptance of TAR?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Here is Where You Can Catch Last Week’s ACEDS Webinar: eDiscovery Trends

Our webinar panel discussion conducted by ACEDS last week was highly attended, well reviewed and generated some interesting discussion (more on that soon).  Were you unable to attend last week’s webinar?  Good news, we have it for you here, on demand, whenever you want to check it out.

The webinar panel discussion, titled How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery was sponsored by CloudNine.  Our panel discussion provided an overview of eDiscovery automation technologies and we took a hard look at the technology and definition of TAR and potential limitations associated with both.  Mary Mack, Executive Director of ACEDS moderated the discussion and I was one of the panelists, along with Bill Dimm, CEO of Hot Neuron and Bill Speros, Evidence Consulting Attorney with Speros & Associates, LLC.

Thanks to our friends at ACEDS for presenting the webinar and to Bill Dimm and Bill Speros for participating in an interesting and thought-provoking discussion.  Hope you enjoy the presentation!

So, what do you think?  Do you think automation is revolutionizing eDiscovery?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Happy Anniversary to my wife (and the love of my life), Paige!  I’m very lucky to be married to such a wonderful woman!

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Don’t Miss Today’s Webinar – How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery!: eDiscovery Trends

Today is your chance to catch a terrific discussion about automation in eDiscovery and, particularly an in-depth discussion about technology assisted review (TAR) and whether it lives up to the current hype!

Today, ACEDS will be conducting a webinar panel discussion, titled How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery, sponsored by CloudNine.  Our panel discussion will provide an overview of the eDiscovery automation technologies and we will really take a hard look at the technology and definition of TAR and the limitations associated with both.  This time, Mary Mack, Executive Director of ACEDS will be moderating and I will be one of the panelists, along with Bill Dimm, CEO of Hot Neuron and Bill Speros, Evidence Consulting Attorney with Speros & Associates, LLC.

The webinar will be conducted at 1:00 pm ET (which is 12:00 pm CT, 11:00 am MT and 10:00 am PT).  Oh, and 5:00 pm GMT (Greenwich Mean Time).  If you’re in any other time zone, you’ll have to figure it out for yourself.  Click on the link here to register.

If you’re interested in learning about various ways in which automation is being used in eDiscovery and getting a chance to look at the current state of TAR, possible warts and all, I encourage you to sign up and attend.  It should be an enjoyable and educational hour.  Thanks to our friends at ACEDS for presenting today’s webinar!

So, what do you think?  Do you think automation is revolutionizing eDiscovery?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

English Court Rules that Respondents Can Use Predictive Coding in Contested Case: eDiscovery Case Law

In Brown v BCA Trading, et. al. [2016] EWHC 1464 (Ch), Mr. Registrar Jones ruled that, with “nothing, as yet, to suggest that predictive coding will not be able to identify the documents which would otherwise be identified through, for example, keyword search”, “predictive coding must be the way forward” in this dispute between parties as to whether the Respondents could use predictive coding to respond to eDisclosure requests.

The May 17 order began by noting that “the question whether or not electronic disclosure by the Respondents should be provided, as they ask, using predictive coding or via a more traditional keyword approach instead” was “contested”.  With the “majority of the documents that may be relevant for the purposes of trial…in the hands of the First Respondent”, the order noted that fact is “relevant to take into account when considering the Respondents’ assertion, presented from their own view and on advice received professionally, that they think predictive coding will be the most reasonable and proportionate method of disclosure.”  The cost for predictive coding was estimated “in the region of £132,000” whereas the costs for a key word search approach was estimated to be “at least £250,000” and could “even reach £338,000 on a worst case scenario” (emphasis added).  In the order, it was acknowledged that the cost “is relevant and persuasive only to the extent that predictive coding will be effective and achieve the disclosure required.”

With that in mind, Mr. Registrar Jones stated the following: “I reach the conclusion based on cost that predictive coding must be the way forward. There is nothing, as yet, to suggest that predictive coding will not be able to identify the documents which would otherwise be identified through, for example, keyword search and, more importantly, with the full cost of employees/agents having to carry out extensive investigations as to whether documents should be disclosed or not. It appears from the information received from the Respondents that predictive coding will be considerably cheaper than key word disclosure.”

The order also referenced the ten factors set out by Master Matthews in the Pyrrho Investments case (the first case in England to approve predictive coding) to help determine that predictive coding was appropriate for that case, with essentially all factors applying to this case as well, except for factor 10 (the parties have agreed on the use of the software, and also how to use it).

So, what do you think?  Do you think parties should always have the right to use predictive coding to support their production efforts absence strong evidence that it is not as effective as other means?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

For more reading about this case, check out Chris Dale’s post here and Adam Kuhn’s post here.

Don’t forget that tomorrow at 1:00pm ET, ACEDS will be conducting a webinar panel discussion, titled How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery, sponsored by CloudNine.  Our panel discussion will provide an overview of the eDiscovery automation technologies and we will really take a hard look at the technology and definition of TAR and the limitations associated with both.  This time, Mary Mack, Executive Director of ACEDS will be moderating and I will be one of the panelists, along with Bill Dimm, CEO of Hot Neuron and Bill Speros, Evidence Consulting Attorney with Speros & Associates, LLC.  Click on the link here to register.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Judge Peck Refuses to Order Defendant to Use Technology Assisted Review: eDiscovery Case Law

We’re beginning to see more disputes between parties regarding the use of technology assisted review (TAR) in discovery.  Usually in these disputes, one party wants to use TAR and the other party objects.  In this case, the dispute was a bit different…

In Hyles v. New York City, No. 10 Civ. 3119 (AT)(AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016), New York Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck, indicating that the key issue before the court in the discovery dispute between parties was whether (at the plaintiff’s request) the defendants can be forced to use technology assisted review, refused to force the defendant to do so, stating “The short answer is a decisive ‘NO.’”

Case Background

In this discrimination case by a former employee of the defendant, after several delays in discovery, the parties had several discovery disputes.  They filed a joint letter with the court, seeking rulings as to the proper scope of ESI discovery (mostly issues as to custodians and date range) and search methodology – whether to use keywords (which the defendants wanted to do) or TAR (which the plaintiff wanted the defendant to do).

With regard to date range, the parties agreed to a start date for discovery of September 1, 2005 but disagreed on the end date.  In the discovery conference held on July 27, 2016, Judge Peck ruled on a date in between what the plaintiff and defendants – April 30, 2010, without prejudice to the plaintiff seeking documents or ESI from a later period, if justified, on a more targeted inquiry basis.  As to custodians, the City agreed to search the files of nine custodians, but not six additional custodians that the plaintiff requested.  The Court ruled that discovery should be staged, by starting with the agreed upon nine custodians. After reviewing the production from the nine custodians, if the plaintiff could demonstrate that other custodians had relevant, unique and proportional ESI, the Court would consider targeted searches from those custodians.

After the parties had initial discussions about the City using keywords, the plaintiff’s counsel consulted an ediscovery vendor and proposed that the defendants should use TAR as a “more cost-effective and efficient method of obtaining ESI from Defendants.”  The defendants declined, both because of cost and concerns that the parties, based on their history of scope negotiations, would not be able to collaborate to develop the seed set for a TAR process.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Peck noted that “Hyles absolutely is correct that in general, TAR is cheaper, more efficient and superior to keyword searching” and referenced his “seminal” DaSilva Moore decision and also his 2015 Rio Tinto decision where he wrote that “the case law has developed to the point that it is now black letter law that where the producing party wants to utilize TAR for document review, courts will permit it.”  Judge Peck also noted that “Hyles’ counsel is correct that parties should cooperate in discovery”, but stated that “[c]ooperation principles, however, do not give the requesting party, or the Court, the power to force cooperation or to force the responding party to use TAR.”

Judge Peck, while acknowledging that he is “a judicial advocate for the use of TAR in appropriate cases”, also noted that he is also “a firm believer in the Sedona Principles, particularly Principle 6, which clearly provides that:

Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.”

Judge Peck went on to state: “Under Sedona Principle 6, the City as the responding party is best situated to decide how to search for and produce ESI responsive to Hyles’ document requests. Hyles’ counsel candidly admitted at the conference that they have no authority to support their request to force the City to use TAR. The City can use the search method of its choice. If Hyles later demonstrates deficiencies in the City’s production, the City may have to re-do its search.  But that is not a basis for Court intervention at this stage of the case.”  As a result, Judge Peck denied the plaintiff’s application to force the defendants to use TAR.

So, what do you think?  Are you surprised by that ruling?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Don’t forget that next Wednesday at 1:00pm ET, ACEDS will be conducting a webinar panel discussion, titled How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery, sponsored by CloudNine.  Our panel discussion will provide an overview of the eDiscovery automation technologies and we will really take a hard look at the technology and definition of TAR and the limitations associated with both.  This time, Mary Mack, Executive Director of ACEDS will be moderating and I will be one of the panelists, along with Bill Dimm, CEO of Hot Neuron and Bill Speros, Evidence Consulting Attorney with Speros & Associates, LLC.  Click on the link here to register.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

ACEDS Adds its Weight to the eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey: eDiscovery Trends

We’ve covered two rounds of the quarterly eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey created by Rob Robinson and conducted on his terrific Complex Discovery site (previous results are here and here).  It’s time for the Summer 2016 Survey.  Befitting of the season, the survey has a HOT new affiliation with the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists (ACEDS).

As before, the eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey is a non-scientific survey designed to provide insight into the business confidence level of individuals working in the eDiscovery ecosystem. The term ‘business’ represents the economic factors that impact the creation, delivery, and consumption of eDiscovery products and services.  The purpose of the survey is to provide a subjective baseline for understanding the trajectory of the business of eDiscovery through the eyes of industry professionals.

Also as before, the survey asks questions related to how you rate general business conditions for eDiscovery in your segment of the eDiscovery market, both current and six months from now, a general sense of where you think revenue and profits will be for your segment of the market in six months and which issue do you think will most impact the business of eDiscovery over the next six months, among other questions.  It’s a simple nine question survey that literally takes about a minute to complete.  Who hasn’t got a minute to provide useful information?

Individual answers are kept confidential, with the aggregate results to be published on the ACEDS website (News & Press), on the Complex Discovery blog, and on selected ACEDS Affiliate websites and blogs (we’re one of those and we’ll cover the results as we have for the first two surveys) upon completion of the response period, which started on August 1 and goes through Wednesday, August 31.

What are experts saying about the survey?  Here are a couple of notable quotes:

Mary Mack, Executive Director of ACEDS stated: “The business of eDiscovery is an ever-present and important variable in the equation of legal discovery.  As financial factors are a primary driver in eDiscovery decisions ranging from sourcing and staffing to development and deployment, ACEDS sees value in regularly checking the business pulse of eDiscovery professionals. The eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey provides a tool to help take that pulse on a systematic basis and ACEDS looks forward to sponsoring, participating, and reporting on the results of this salient survey each quarter.”

George Socha, Co-Founder of EDRM and Managing Director of Thought Leadership of BDO stated: “In my experience, the successful conduct of eDiscovery is comprised of a balance of in-depth education, practical execution, and experience-based excellence.  The eDiscovery Business Confidence survey being highlighted by ACEDS is one of many industry surveys that positively contributes to this balance, as it provides a quarterly snapshot into the business of discovery. I highly encourage serious eDiscovery professionals to complete and consider this survey as a key tool for understanding the business challenges and opportunities in our profession.”

The more respondents there are, the more useful the results will be!  What more do you need?  Click here to take the survey yourself.  Don’t forget!

So, what do you think?  Are you confident in the state of business within the eDiscovery industry?  Share your thoughts in the survey and, as always, please share any comments you might have with us or let us know if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Don’t forget that next Wednesday at 1:00pm ET, ACEDS will be conducting a webinar panel discussion, titled How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery, sponsored by CloudNine.  Our panel discussion will provide an overview of the eDiscovery automation technologies and we will really take a hard look at the technology and definition of TAR and the limitations associated with both.  This time, Mary Mack, Executive Director of ACEDS will be moderating and I will be one of the panelists, along with Bill Dimm, CEO of Hot Neuron and Bill Speros, Evidence Consulting Attorney with Speros & Associates, LLC.  Click on the link here to register.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery: eDiscovery Trends

I thought about titling this post “Less Than Half of Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery” to keep the streak alive, but (alas) all good streaks must come to an end… :o)

If you missed our panel session last month in New York City at The Masters Conference, you missed a terrific discussion about automation in eDiscovery and, particularly an in-depth discussion about technology assisted review (TAR) and whether it lives up to the current hype.  Now, you get another chance to check it out, thanks to ACEDS.

Next Wednesday, ACEDS will be conducting a webinar panel discussion, titled How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery, sponsored by CloudNine.  Our panel discussion will provide an overview of the eDiscovery automation technologies and we will really take a hard look at the technology and definition of TAR and the limitations associated with both.  This time, Mary Mack, Executive Director of ACEDS will be moderating and I will be one of the panelists, along with Bill Dimm, CEO of Hot Neuron and Bill Speros, Evidence Consulting Attorney with Speros & Associates, LLC.

The webinar will be conducted at 1:00 pm ET (which is 12:00 pm CT, 11:00 am MT and 10:00 am PT).  Oh, and 5:00 pm GMT (Greenwich Mean Time).  If you’re in any other time zone, you’ll have to figure it out for yourself.  Click on the link here to register.

If you’re interested in learning about various ways in which automation is being used in eDiscovery and getting a chance to look at the current state of TAR, possible warts and all, I encourage you to sign up and attend.  It should be an enjoyable and educational hour.  Thanks to our friends at ACEDS for conducting the session!

So, what do you think?  Do you think automation is revolutionizing eDiscovery?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.