Close
Enter your
text here

EDRM

EDRM Announces Five New Projects: eDiscovery Best Practices

Did anybody doubt that EDRM under the leadership of Mary Mack and Kaylee Walstad was going to be doing BIG things?  If you did doubt it, here’s an announcement that signals that EDRM will be busy creating and improving frameworks, resources and standards within the eDiscovery community.

Last week, EDRM announced five new projects and is seeking new contributors for them.  They are:

Data Sets: This new project is being championed by Cash Butler, founder of Clarilegal, and is seeking project participants. “Everyone still tests and demonstrates with the very old and familiar data set that is comprised primarily of Enron email and attachment data,” claims Cash Butler. “A new modern data set needs to be created that is focused on modern data types as well as email. Slack, Snapchat, Instagram, text messaging, GPS and many other data types that are needed for testing and demonstrating how they process and present in a useful way. In addition, to creating the new data set we will also look to form a framework for community members to easily add, curate and update the data set to stay current.”

One word: Hallelujah!  We’ve needed new up-to-date data sets for years to replace the old Enron set, so I’m hopeful this team will make it happen.

Processing Specifications: John Tredennick, founder of Merlin Legal Open Source Foundation is championing this project with the help of co-trustees Craig Ball, president, Craig D. Ball P.C. (who recently created a processing primer) and Jeffrey Wolff, director of eDiscovery services and principal architect, ZyLAB. The Processing Specifications project will run in parallel with the Merlin Foundation’s programming project for processing.

Data Mapping: Eoghan Kenny, associate, senior manager data projects and Rachel McAdams (no, not her), data projects, at A & L Goodbody, Ireland are championing this project, which the need has arisen due to the new SEAR Act (senior executive accountability regime) to help provide frameworks around who is responsible for what data and where it resides. “The importance of data mapping has grown enormously in Europe – not just for GDPR and investigation purposes, but also to help organizations deal with the increasingly active regulatory environment,” says Kenny. “However, most of our clients struggle with data mapping as it is a new concept to most organizations, with no clear business owner, that often sits in limbo between the “business” and “IT”! The goals of this project are to build frameworks for data mapping exercises, and provide clear guidelines on what the process should look like, because the better an organization understands its data, the cheaper it is to comply with any discovery or investigation obligations.”

State eDiscovery Rules: Suzanne Clark, discovery counsel at eDiscovery CoCounsel and Janice Yates, senior e-discovery consultant at Prism Litigation are co-championing this project and how the State Rules relate to the eDiscovery Federal rules in place. The vision for the State eDiscovery Rules project is to provide a starting point for attorneys to quickly reference the rules in different states and compare and contrast to the federal rules with the various state rules relating to eDiscovery. For example, if an attorney is involved with a case in a state where they are not accustomed to practicing, this EDRM resource will allow them to quickly get up to speed on that state’s rules, where they differ and where they align with the federal rules. “The project work happening at the EDRM is impressive,” says Suzanne Clark. “The time and talent that the project leads and participants donate to the cause of advancing eDiscovery knowledge and good practices will surely serve to advance the industry and legal practice in the discovery realm.”  The project will start with Florida and Michigan and are looking for more contributors from other states.

I look forward to this as we need an up to date resource here – I’m not sure that the ones I’ve covered in the past are being actively updated.

Pro Bono: This project was just launched and has had an overwhelming reach out from people in every area, attorneys, paralegals (and associations), litigation support professional, service providers, platforms, corporations and those in need. We are still seeking assistance as the need for access to justice is great. Stewarded by BDO director, George Socha and HB Gordon, eDiscovery manager for the Vanguard Group, the Pro Bono project will create subgroups to accelerate providing eDiscovery services to those in need.

As the announcement notes, projects, both ongoing and newly initiated, will be advanced at the EDRM Summit/Workshop 2020 at Duke University School of Law, June 24-26. I’ll have more to say about that as we get closer to it, but it certainly sounds like it will be very busy!  I’m certainly planning to be there!

So, what do you think?  Are you interested in participating in EDRM?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

Mary Mack and Kaylee Walstad acquire the EDRM from Duke Law: eDiscovery Breaking News

It’s a rare two-post day for us at eDiscovery Daily, but this news is worth it.  Mary Mack and Kaylee Walstad, the former executive director and former vice president of client engagement, respectively, of The Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS) today announced that they have acquired the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) from the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School.

Here is the text of the press release issued earlier this morning.  Also, Zach Warren of Legaltech News covered the story here.

Minneapolis, MN – October 18, 2019 – Mary Mack (CISSP, CEDS, CIAM) and Kaylee Walstad (CEDS, CIMP), the former executive director and former vice president of client engagement, respectively, of The Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS) today announced that they have acquired the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) from the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School.

The EDRM is the leading global framework organization for the e-discovery community. The organization developed the ubiquitous EDRM model to provide a global language for understanding the intricate steps in the e-discovery process and to communicate them effectively. George Socha and Tom Gelbmann founded the EDRM in 2005, and Duke Law acquired it in 2016. The terms of the acquisition transaction are not being disclosed.

For the past four years, Mack and Walstad led ACEDS, the leading global provider of ediscovery certification and education, stewarding the growth of the association, its certification program, and its chapters to international status and recognition. In their new roles, Mack will serve as the chief executive officer and chief legal technologist, and Walstad will serve as the chief strategy officer for the EDRM. The Bolch Judicial Institute will remain involved in the work of the EDRM community as a valued partner.

“Mary and Kaylee bring a deep understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the e-discovery industry, as well as strong connections to e-discovery and legal leaders and innovators,” said David Levi, Levi family professor of law and judicial studies, and director of the Bolch Judicial Institute. “Their collective vision and creativity will guide the EDRM into a new and exciting chapter.”

“Kaylee and I are so excited about the prospect of building on the amazing work that George, Tom and the Duke team, advisory council, project leads, sponsors and contributors have done, as well as the ability to shepherd the EDRM to its next evolution,” said Mack. “Partnering with David Levi and his fantastic team at the Bolch Judicial Institute, as well as George Socha and so many EDRM supporters is our dream opportunity. The EDRM is a place where our global community can get involved immediately and meaningfully. Kaylee and I are honored to have the opportunity to take the EDRM into the future and to collaborate with such outstanding people.”

“When Tom Gelbmann and I founded the EDRM in 2005, we sought to create a resource that would help folks to better understand e-discovery and its potential,” said George Socha. “I am thrilled that Mary and Kaylee will be taking the helm at the EDRM, guiding it and its community to the next level. I have worked with Mary and Kaylee for many years and eagerly look forward to working closely with them as they advance and expand the EDRM.”

“I am excited to learn that Mary and Kaylee, who together helped build ACEDS into a powerhouse institution that is respected across the globe, will be launching this new chapter that provides a new look and new home to EDRM,” said Mike Quartararo, the recently named president of ACEDS. “We have already had discussions about how ACEDS and EDRM will complement one another, building on a partnership that already exists, and delivering high-quality and meaningful content to the ACEDS membership and community.”

“Law and technology are, of course, key components of the Bolch Judicial Institute’s mission, and we will remain closely involved in the EDRM’s work,” said Levi. “We think that the EDRM’s future is very bright with Mary and Kaylee at the helm, and we intend to be a part of that future.”

The EDRM organization currently has nine active projects through which legal professionals, such as judges, attorneys, e-discovery experts, and technology and support providers, work together to create new resources and frameworks that serve as guides and touchstones for the rapidly shifting world of e-discovery. Mack and Walstad will quickly engage with the EDRM project leaders and teams, as well as the EDRM’s advisory council and partners, to collaboratively develop next steps and future plans for the EDRM’s global community.

So, we now not only know who has taken over ACEDS, but also what Mary and Kaylee will be doing next!  Exciting news for the eDiscovery community and we at CloudNine look forward to working with Mary and Kaylee on exciting EDRM initiatives!

So, what do you think?  How do you think this acquisition will impact EDRM?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

It’s Time for the EDRM 2019 Workshop and Forum at Duke Law School: eDiscovery Best Practices

Two days, two posts about eDiscovery education and best practices at law schools!  Yes, it’s time for the annual Duke/EDRM Workshop in Durham, NC, later this month.  And, you don’t have to be a member of Duke/EDRM to attend!

The annual Duke/EDRM workshop/forum will be held this year on May 15-17.  It brings together highly motivated judges, practitioners, consultants, service providers, and software vendors to work collaboratively on exciting and challenging eDiscovery and other IT projects that impact the industry and the profession.   The group critically examines and discusses pending projects, providing their collective wisdom and guidance on the projects’ challenges, problems, and issues, and proposes new projects.

Over the past year, Duke/EDRM was busy.  TAR Guidelines were approved, a draft of a TAR protocol is reportedly progressing nicely, and more than 250 federal judges responded to a discovery survey administered by EDRM/Exterro.  At the workshop/forum, the leaders of teams handling eight pending projects will seek input and guidance from the group on the biggest challenge, issue, or problem they are encountering.  The projects range from AI, to a compliance code of conduct governing GDPR, to a proportionality template and much more.

Also, Duke/EDRM notes some new activities to the workshop/forum that include 1) A panel of in-house counsel from major corporations (Exxon/Mobil, American Airlines, and GSK) discussing their biggest eDiscovery challenges and how best to work with outside eDiscovery consultants, service providers, and software vendors; 2) A panel of four judges addressing what eDiscovery information is most useful to them and what information they consider to be the least useful; and 3) A review of Herb Roitblat’s FOMO paper, which corroborates the anecdotal experience of TAR users using mathematical and probability equations that null sets rarely include significant new documents.

Speaking of “FOMO”, do you have fear of missing out this year?  If so, you can still register.  The registration fee is $650.  If you’re a current Duke/EDRM member, you can request a promo code for $150 off registration by emailing lora.farmer@law.duke.edu.  If you’re not a member, you can add an annual Duke/EDRM membership for just $50 more when registering for the workshop/forum, for a total payment of $700.

Here’s a link to the workshop main page, the agenda, a list of panelists, a list of materials that will be included, hotel accommodations (the Washington Duke Inn is very nice) and the registration page.

So, what do you think?  Are you going to this year’s Duke/EDRM workshop/forum?  And, have you ever seen more slashes (“/”) in a single blog post?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

The Enron Data Set is No Longer a Representative Test Data Set: eDiscovery Best Practices

If you attend any legal technology conference where eDiscovery software vendors are showing their latest software developments, you may have noticed the data that is used to illustrate features and capabilities by many of the vendors – it’s data from the old Enron investigation.  The Enron Data Set has remained the go-to data set for years as the best source of high-volume data to be used for demos and software testing.  And, it’s still good for software demos.  But, it’s no longer a representative test data set for testing processing – at least not as it’s constituted – and it hasn’t been for a good while.  Let’s see why.

But first, here’s a reminder of what the Enron Data Set is.

The data set is public domain data from Enron Corporation that originated from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Enron Investigation (you can still access that information here).  The original data set consists of:

  • Email: Data consisting of 92% of Enron’s staff emails;
  • Scanned documents: 150,000 scanned pages in TIFF format of documents provided to FERC during the investigation, accompanied by OCR generated text of the images;
  • Transcripts: 40 transcripts related to the case.

Over eight years ago, EDRM created a Data Set project that took the email and generated PST files for each of the custodians (about 170 PST files for 151 custodians).  Roughly 34.5 GB in 153 zip files, probably two to three times that size unzipped (I haven’t recently unzipped it all to check the exact size).  The Enron emails were originally in Lotus Notes databases, so the PSTs created aren’t a perfect rendition of what they might look like if they originated in Outlook (for example, there are a lot of internal Exchange addresses vs. SMTP email addresses), but it still has been a really useful good sized collection for demo and test data.  EDRM has also since created some micro test data sets, which are good for specific test cases, but not high volume.

As people began to use the data, it became apparent that there was a lot of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) contained in the set, including social security numbers and credit card numbers (back in the late 90s and early 2000s, there was nowhere near the concern about data privacy as there is today).  So, a couple of years later, EDRM partnered with NUIX to “clean” the data of PII and they removed thousands of emails with PII (though a number of people identified additional PII after that process was complete, so be careful).

If there are comparable high-volume public domain collections that are representative of a typical email collection for discovery, I haven’t seen them (and, believe me, I have looked).  Sure, you can get a high-volume dump of data from Wikipedia or other sites out there, but that’s not indicative of a typical eDiscovery data set.  If any of you out there know of any that are, I’m all ears.

Until then, the EDRM Enron Data Set remains the gold-standard as the best high-volume example of a public domain email collection.  So, why isn’t it a good test data set anymore for processing?

Do you remember the days when Microsoft Outlook limited the size of a PST file to 2 GB?  Outlook 2002 and earlier versions limited the size of PST files to 2 GB.  Years ago, that was about the largest PST file we typically had to process in eDiscovery.  Since Outlook 2003, a new PST file format has been used, which supports Unicode and doesn’t have the 2 GB size limit any more.  Now, in discovery, we routinely see PST files that are 20, 30, 40 or even more GB in a single file.

What difference does it make?  The challenge today with large mailstore files like these (as well as large container files, including ZIP and forensic containers) is that single-threaded processes bog down on these large files and they can take a long time to process.  These days, to get through large files like these more quickly, you need multi-threaded processing capabilities and the ability to throw multiple agents at these files to get them processed in a fraction of the time.  As an example, we’ve seen processing throughput increased 400-600% with multi-threaded ingestion using CloudNine’s LAW product compared to single-threaded processes (a reduction of processing time from over 24 hours to a little over 4 hours in a recent example).  Large container files are very typical in eDiscovery collections today and many PST files we see today are anywhere from 10 GB to more than 50 GB in size.  They’re becoming the standard in most eDiscovery email collections.

As I mentioned, the Enron Data Set is 170 PST files over 151 custodians, with some of the larger custodians’ collections broken into multiple PST files (one custodian has 11 PST files in the collection).  But, none of them are over 2 GB in size (presumably Lotus Notes had a similar size limit back in the day) and most of them are less than 200 MB.  That’s not indicative of a typical eDiscovery email collection today and wouldn’t provide a representative speed test for processing purposes.

Can the Enron Data Set still be used to benchmark single-threaded vs. multi-threaded processes?  Yes, but not as it’s constituted – to do so, you have to combine them into larger PST files more representative of today’s collections.  We did that at CloudNine and came up with a 42 GB PST file that contains several hundred thousand de-duped emails and attachments.  You could certainly break that up into 2-4 smaller PST files to conduct a test of multiple PST files as well.  That provides a more typical eDiscovery collection in today’s terms – at least on a small scale.

So, when an eDiscovery vendor quotes processing throughput numbers for you, it’s important to know the types of files that they were processing to obtain those metrics.  If they were using the Enron Data Set as is, those numbers may not be as meaningful as you think.  And, if somebody out there is aware of a good, new, large-volume, public domain, “typical” eDiscovery collection with large mailstore and container files (not to mention content from mobile devices and other sources), please let me know!

So, what do you think?  Do you still rely on the Enron Data Set for demo and test data?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

EDRM Releases the Final Version of its TAR Guidelines: eDiscovery Best Practices

During last year’s EDRM Spring Workshop, I discussed on this blog that EDRM had released the preliminary draft of its Technology Assisted Review (TAR) Guidelines for public comment.  They gave a mid-July deadline for comments and I even challenged the people who didn’t understand TAR very well to review it and provide feedback – after all, those are the people who would hopefully stand to benefit the most from these guidelines.  Now, over half a year later, EDRM has released the final version of its TAR Guidelines.

The TAR Guidelines (available here) have certainly gone through a lot of review.  In addition to the public comment period last year, it was discussed in the last two EDRM Spring meetings (2017 and 2018), presented at the Duke Distinguished Lawyers’ conference on Technology Assisted Review in 2017 for feedback, and worked on extensively during that time.

As indicated in the press release, more than 50 volunteer judges, practitioners, and eDiscovery experts contributed to the drafting process over a two-year period. Three drafting teams worked on various iterations of the document, led by Matt Poplawski of Winston & Strawn, Mike Quartararo of eDPM Advisory Services, and Adam Strayer of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Tim Opsitnick of TCDI and U.S. Magistrate Judge James Francis IV (Southern District of New York, Ret.), assisted in editing the document and incorporating comments from the public comment period.

“We wanted to address the growing confusion about TAR, particularly marketing claims and counterclaims that undercut the benefits of various versions of TAR software,” said John Rabiej, deputy director of the Bolch Judicial Institute of Duke Law School, which oversees EDRM. “These guidelines provide guidance to all users of TAR and apply across the different variations of TAR. We avoided taking a position on which variation of TAR is more effective, because that very much depends on facts specific to each case. Instead, our goal was to create a definitive document that could explain what TAR is and how it is used, to help demystify it and to help encourage more widespread adoption.”  EDRM/Duke Law also provide a TAR Q&A with Rabiej here.

The 50-page document contains four chapters: The first chapter defines technology assisted review and the TAR process. The second chapter lays out a standard workflow for the TAR process. The third chapter examines alternative tasks for applying TAR, including prioritization, categorization, privilege review, and quality and quantity control. Chapter four discusses factors to consider when deciding whether to use TAR, such as document set, cost, timing, and jurisdiction.

“Judges generally lack the technical expertise to feel comfortable adjudicating disputes involving sophisticated search methodologies. I know I did,” said Magistrate Judge Francis, who assisted in editing the document. “These guidelines are intended, in part, to provide judges with sufficient information to ask the right questions about TAR. When judges are equipped with at least this fundamental knowledge, counsel and their clients will be more willing to use newer, more efficient technologies, recognizing that they run less risk of being caught up in a discovery quagmire because a judge just doesn’t understand TAR. This, in turn, will further the goals of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of litigation.”

EDRM just announced the release of the final version of the TAR guidelines yesterday, so I haven’t had a chance to read it completely through yet, but a quick comparison to the public comment version from last May seems to indicate the same topics and sub-topics that were covered back then, so there certainly appears to be no major rewrite as a result of the public comment feedback.  I look forward to reading it in detail and determining what specific changes were made.

So, what do you think?  Will these guidelines help the average attorney or judge better understand TAR?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

EDRM Needs Your Input on its TAR Guidelines: eDiscovery Best Practices

I’m here in Durham, NC at the annual EDRM Spring Workshop at Duke Law School and, as usual, the Workshop is a terrific opportunity to discuss the creation of standards and guidelines for the legal community, as well as network with like minded people on eDiscovery topics.  I’ll have more to report about this year’s Workshop next week.  But, one part of the Workshop that I will touch on now is the release of the public comment version of EDRM’s Technology Assisted Review (TAR) Guidelines.

Last Friday, EDRM released the preliminary draft of its TAR Guidelines for public comment (you can download it here).  EDRM and the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law are seeking comments from the bench, bar, and public on a preliminary draft of Technology Assisted Review (TAR) Guidelines. Nearly 50 volunteer lawyers, e-discovery experts, software developers, scholars and judges worked on this draft under the auspices of EDRM. A version of the document was presented at the Duke Distinguished Lawyers’ conference on Technology Assisted Review, held Sept. 7-8, 2017. At that event, 15 judges and nearly 100 lawyers and practitioners provided feedback and comments on the draft. The document was further revised based on discussions at that conference, additional review by judges and additional review by EDRM members over the past couple of months (which involved significant changes and a much tighter and briefer guideline document). With the assistance of four law student fellows of the Bolch Judicial Institute, this draft was finalized in May 2018 for public comment.

So, calling this a preliminary draft is a bit of a misnomer as it has already been through several iterations of review and edit.  Now, it’s the public’s turn.

EDRM states that “Comments on this preliminary draft will be carefully considered by the drafting team and an advisory group of judges as they finalize the document for publication. Please send comments on this draft, whether favorable, adverse, or otherwise, as soon as possible, but no later than Monday, July 16, 2018. Comments must be submitted in tracked edits (note: the guidelines are in a Word document for easy ability to track changes) and submitted via email to edrm@law.duke.edu. All comments will be made available to the public.”

That’s all well and good and EDRM will hopefully get a lot of useful feedback on the guideline document.  However, one thing I have observed about public comment periods is that the people who tend to provide comments (i.e., geeks like us who attend EDRM workshops) are people who already understand TAR (and think they know how best to explain it to others).  If the goal of the EDRM TAR guidelines is to help the general bench and bar better understand TAR, then it’s important for the average attorney to review the document and provide comments as to how useful it is.

So, if you’re an attorney or legal technology practitioner who doesn’t understand TAR, I encourage (even challenge) you to review these guidelines and provide feedback.  Point out what you learned from the document and what was confusing and whether or not you feel that you have a better understanding of TAR and the considerations for when to use it and where it can be used.  Ask yourself afterward if you have a better idea of how to get started using TAR and if you understand the difference between TAR approaches.  If these guidelines can help a lot of members of the legal profession better understand TAR, that will be the true measure of its effectiveness.

Oh, and by the way, Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation is now in effect!  Are you ready?  If not, you might want to check out this webcast.

So, what do you think?  Will these guidelines help the average attorney or judge better understand TAR?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

It’s Not Too Late to Attend This Year’s EDRM Workshop at Duke: eDiscovery Best Practices

It’s hard to believe, but it’s almost time for another Spring EDRM Workshop meeting!  For the second year, the 2018 EDRM Spring Workshop will be held at EDRM’s new home at Duke University Law School in Durham, North Carolina.  So, what can you expect at this year’s meeting?  Let’s take a look.

The Workshop will be held at Duke Law School at 210 Science Drive, Durham, NC 27708-0362 on Wednesday, May 23 through Friday, May 25.

Sessions will include working meetings and updates on the TAR guidelines project, the GDPR project, and a new project to revise the EDRM model(!), as well as sessions to launch new efforts to create a template for proportionality analysis and address issues in information governance. Project teams will meet during the afternoon of Wednesday, May 23rd; the general event will begin with a reception at 6 p.m. Wednesday and will conclude by noon on Friday, May 25th.

Believe it or not, you don’t have to be an EDRM member to attend.  The conference fee is $650 for non-members; $500 for members (the fee covers meeting expenses and meals).  Contact edrm@law.duke.edu if you are a member but have not received the discount code.  If you’re a non-member, you can add an annual EDRM membership for just $50 when registering for the workshop, for a total payment of $700 for membership and workshop registration.

If you’re coming in from out of town, a limited number of rooms on a “first-come first-served” basis have been reserved at the Washington Duke Inn at the rate of $199.00 per night plus tax through May 7.  You can also book your room online at this link: Duke Law EDRM 2018 Workshop.

I’ve been coming to EDRM Workshop meetings since the second year of EDRM’s existence in 2006 and last year was one of the best meetings ever!  The Duke campus is beautiful and the meeting venue is first rate.  I will be there again this year and so will several of my colleagues from CloudNine!  For my recap of last year’s meeting, click here.  Will we see you there?

So, what do you think?  Do you plan to attend this year’s EDRM meeting?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

Reporting From the EDRM-Duke Law 2017 Spring Workshop: eDiscovery Best Practices

This blog post is a little longer than most as there is a lot to cover here…

This week, EDRM held its first Spring Workshop since it was acquired by Duke Law last August, which means this was the first workshop held at the Duke campus in Durham, North Carolina and it was unique in several ways.  Here are a few of highlights from the workshop.

Location

As I mentioned, the Workshop was held on the Duke campus in Duke Law School (conveniently and, by design, the school year has just ended).  The venue was excellent and the Duke campus is beautiful, with the law school about a mile from the hotel where many of the participants stayed.  Here’s a couple of examples.

Even the parking garages are architecturally impressive!

Attendees

There were about 50 participants at the workshop, and most of them (at least by my observation) were either law firm or service provider participants.  While there were a few familiar faces (I’ve been attending EDRM meetings since the second year in 2006), most of the people that I met and spoke with were first time attendees to an EDRM workshop.  I’m not sure if the reason for that was the change in locale, the primary project below being worked on (below), or both.  Regardless, it appears that a number of new people are interested in participating in EDRM, which is a clear indication that the importance of EDRM has remain unchanged after the acquisition by Duke.

Project Activities

The majority of attendees were participating in one primary project identified by EDRM as its top goal for the year: developing a user guide for Technology Assisted Review (TAR), with one team working on Cross Border Discovery.  After some initial introduction activities at the start of the workshop by John Rabiej (Director of Duke Law School Center for Judicial Studies), George Socha (founder of EDRM) and Jim Waldron (the new EDRM director) , the teams split into breakout groups to work in their specific teams on Tuesday, with follow-up breakout sessions completed yesterday.

Technology Assisted Review

The TAR effort was broken into three teams, working on various aspects of TAR, as follows:

Team 1: Led by Mike Quartararo of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, this team was formed to define TAR (and the types of TAR) and discuss use cases for TAR.

Team 2: Led by Adam Strayer of BDO Consulting, this team was formed to discuss factors to consider when deciding whether to use TAR, as well as factors to consider when selecting a TAR tool and service provider.  I am participating on this team.

Team 3: Led by Gareth Evans of Gibson Dunn, this team was formed to discuss “transparency” and “cooperation” considerations regarding TAR, as well as designing and implementing a sound TAR protocol and workflow.

In much the same way that Max McGee said “Coach, you’re going too fast” when Vince Lombardi started a training camp by telling his Green Bay Packer team that “This is a football”, Team 1 spent a lot of their time on Tuesday debating the definition of TAR and/or the appropriate scope of the user guide.  Since teams 2 and 3 were impacted by that discussion as well, the entire group re-convened yesterday morning to discuss the issue further.  The basic discussion came down to two issues:

  1. Whether the definition of TAR (and scope of the document) should be limited to supervised machine learning technology (commonly today called predictive coding) or should include unsupervised machine learning technologies (such as clustering and email threading), and
  2. Whether we should even call the process Technology Assisted Review, or use more specific terms (supervised/unsupervised machine learning), while referencing the more commonly used terms of TAR and predictive coding for continuity and familiarity.

As you can imagine, it was a spirited discussion with attendees having different viewpoints on the topic.  :o)  Aspects of the decisions are still being finalized, so I won’t jump the gun here (sorry, you’ll have to wait for the publication!).

The TAR team is TARgeting (no pun intended) an initial version of the guide for The Duke Conference on Technology Assisted Review (TAR) Best Practices in September 7th and 8th in Arlington, Virginia.

Cross-Border Discovery

A small team, led by Deena Coffman of BDO Consulting, began work on a cross border discovery project, with an initial primary focus on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regulation that enters into application on May 25, 2018.  Initial discussions focused on identifying manageable first steps that could serve as a building block and the group drafted initial language to formalize a proposed initial scope to be submitted soon to EDRM members with the process to be iterative to eventually (hopefully) lead to a Code of Conduct.  Deena also indicated that the group will also reach out to EDRM members for real life lessons and lessons learned in cross-border discovery.

Networking

Of course, one of the best benefits of attending an EDRM workshop is the opportunity to network with colleagues that also work in eDiscovery and share ideas, and this workshop was no exception.  At breakfasts, lunches, dinner, happy hour and within sessions, all of us were able to discuss a variety of topics (most work related, some not) with various attendees and learn how they address eDiscovery challenges in their organizations.  Speaking personally, this was the most enjoyable EDRM workshop I’ve attended in some time and I enjoyed seeing a lot of new faces at this year’s workshop getting involved in thought leadership in our industry.  That’s what EDRM is all about.

If you’re interested becoming a member of EDRM and participating in any EDRM project, click here for more information, including fee information and a link to a registration form.

So, what do you think?  Are you a member of EDRM?  Are you interested in becoming a member?  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.

What’s Changed and What’s Next for EDRM at Duke: eDiscovery Trends

As we’ve discussed (here, here and here), EDRM was recently acquired by Duke Law School’s Center for Judicial Studies. How will this new partnership change EDRM?  Yesterday, EDRM and Duke Law conducted a webinar to discuss the future of EDRM at Duke, what’s changed and what’s next.

The webinar was conducted by George Socha, co-founder of EDRM (and now managing director in BDO’s Forensic Technology Services practice) and Jim Waldron, the new EDRM Director.  Jim isn’t just new to EDRM, he’s new to Duke, having started February 1st after more than 30 years as Clerk of the US Bankruptcy Court in New Jersey and having served on the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules since 2010.

Duke Law School’s Center for Judicial Studies is designed to bring together the bench, bar, academy, and other professionals to facilitate educational opportunities and develop practical resources, guides and other materials.  In addition to EDRM, it includes The Duke Conference and Judicature, a quarterly journal publication for judges.

As for EDRM, some of the things that have changed as a result of the Duke acquisition include:

  • New relationship with academy and judiciary that broadens EDRM’s reach and opportunities for collaboration;
  • New audiences for EDRM materials;
  • New team to support EDRM activities (as George noted, with Duke’s support, EDRM no longer has to be the “George and Tom show”);
  • New focus with one major project per year to ensure deliverables;
  • The opportunity to collaborate with The Duke Conference, which will start with the TAR project (this year’s major project) in September; and
  • The opportunity to publish in Judicature.

Speaking of the TAR project, it’s already underway with three teams led by Mike Quartararo, of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP; Gareth Evans, of Gibson Dunn; and Adam Strayer, of BDO Consulting.  Those teams will meet at the EDRM annual workshop from May 15 to 17 in Durham.  Email edrm@law.duke.edu if you’re interested in joining the project (to join, you have to be an EDRM member, click here for more information on how to join EDRM).

EDRM is also in the early stages of a project related to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the impacts of it on cross border discovery and there will be a breakout session on that during the annual workshop as well.

Not everything has changed at EDRM.  It will still be a member-driven organization, efforts on past projects will continue, and all of the models, publications and other materials that were available to the public will continue to be available.

EDRM will also be conducting a webinar, tentatively scheduled for later this month, on the new Security Audit Questionnaire rolled out last month.  Sounds like business as usual at EDRM with plenty of activities happening post acquisition.

So, what do you think?  Will the acquisition by Duke Law be a positive influence for EDRM?  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.

For the Fifth Year, Florida is the Place to Be for eDiscovery Education: eDiscovery Trends

The fifth annual University of Florida E-Discovery Conference is coming up one week from today, on March 30, and you can attend even if you don’t plan to be in the state of Florida on that day.

Not surprisingly, given the new technology CLE requirement in Florida, the focus of the conference this year is competence in 2017.  As the conference site notes, it’s “no longer your grandfather’s e-discovery (circa 2005). There are exciting new e-discovery tools, new offerings and huge new challenges against a backdrop of increasing demands for competence by judicial officials.”

Notable speakers include Craig Ball, George Socha of BDO Consulting, David Horrigan of kCura, Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis, Mary Mack of ACEDS, Kenya Dixon of the FTC, Corey Lee of Hunton & Williams and Sonya Strnad from Holland & Knight.  Not to mention a number of federal and state judges, including U.S. Magistrates William Matthewman, Anthony Porcelli, and Gary Jones, Florida Circuit Court Judge Meenu Sasser, and retired Florida Circuit Court Judge Ralph Artigliere.

The conference includes topics ranging from cloud/social media/mobile devices preservation to collections on a budget to meet and confer to defending your keyword search.  The use of artificial intelligence for document review is explored, as well as efficient and reliable document review using contemporary tools.  The day ends with a judicial panel where federal and state judges discuss what they now expect from clients and attorneys.  A link to the Agenda is here.

For the first time, the University of Florida Levin College of Law is also sponsoring an E-Discovery CareerFest to respond to the growing interest of University of Florida law students in exploring career paths that involve electronic discovery and data analytic skills.  The CareerFest will be conducted the day before the main conference, Wednesday, March 29, from 3:00 to 5:30PM ET.

The 2017 UF Law E-Discovery Conference has been approved for 6 General, 6 Technology and 1 Ethics CLE credits by the Florida Bar.  If you plan to attend in person, the event will once again take place at the University of Florida Levin College of Law campus.  But, if you can’t attend in person, the event will also (once again) be streamed online.

The conference costs $199 to attend in person or $99 to attend via livestream.  Members of the 8th Judicial Circuit Bar Association, ACEDS and Friends of the conference are eligible to receive a discounted rate.  The conference is free to attend in person or via livestream to all employees of federal and state government agencies, judges and judicial staff, students, and academics.  To register for the conference, click on the “Register Now” link on the conference web site here.

So, what do you think?  Are you attending the conference?  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.