Close
Enter your
text here

Industry Trends

eDiscovery Trends: Christine Musil of Informative Graphics Corporation (IGC)
 

This is the second of the 2012 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the emerging trends in eDiscovery that will have the greatest impact in 2012?
  2. Which trend(s), if any, haven’t emerged to this point like you thought they would?
  3. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends? (Note: Christine was interviewed the night before the show, so there were obviously no observations at that point)
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Christine Musil.  Christine has a diverse career in engineering and marketing spanning 18 years. Christine has been with IGC since March 1996, when she started as a technical writer and a quality assurance engineer. After moving to marketing in 2001, she has applied her in-depth knowledge of IGC's products and benefits to marketing initiatives, including branding, overall messaging, and public relations. She has also been a contributing author to a number of publications on archiving formats, redaction, and viewing technology in the enterprise.

What do you consider to be the emerging trends in eDiscovery that will have the greatest impact in 2012?  And which trend(s), if any, haven’t emerged to this point like you thought they would?

That's a hard question.  Especially for us because we're somewhat tangential to the market, and not as deeply enmeshed in the market as a lot of the other vendors are.  I think the number of acquisitions in the industry was what we expected, though maybe the M&A players themselves were surprising.  For example, I didn't personally see the recent ADI acquisition (Applied Discovery acquired by Siris Capital) coming.  And while we weren’t surprised that Clearwell was acquired, we thought that their being acquired by Symantec was an interesting move.

So, we expect the consolidation to continue.  We watched the major content management players like EMC OpenText to see if they would acquire additional, targeted eDiscovery providers to round out some of their solutions, but through 2011 they didn’t seem to have decided whether they're “all in” despite some previous acquisitions in the space.  We had wondered if some of them have decided maybe they're out again, though EMC is here in force for Kazeon this year.  So, I think that’s some of what surprised me about the market.

Other trends that I see are potentially more changes in the FRCP (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) and probably a continued push towards project-based pricing.    We have certainly felt the pressure to do more project-based pricing, so we're watching that. Escalating data volumes have caused cost increases and, obviously, something's going to have to give there.  That's where I think we’re going to see more regulations come out through new FRCP rules to provide more proportionality to the Discovery process, or clients will simply dictate more pricing alternatives.

What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

We just announced a new release of our Brava!® product, version 7.1, at the show.  The biggest additions to Brava are in the Enterprise version, and we’re debuting a the new Brava Changemark®  Viewer (Changemark®) for smartphones as well as an upcoming Brava HTML client for tablets.  iPads have been a bigger game changer than I think a lot of people even anticipated.  So, we’re excited about it. Also new with Brava 7.1 isvideo collaboration and improved enterprise readiness and performance for very large deployments.

We also just announced the results of our Redaction Survey, which we conducted to gauge user adoption of toward electronic redaction software. Nearly 65% of the survey respondents were from law firms, so that was a key indicator of the importance of redaction within the legal community.  Of the respondents, 25% of them indicated that they are still doing redaction manually, with markers or redaction tape, 32% are redacting electronically, and nearly 38% are using a combined approach with paper-based and software-driven redaction.  Of those that redact electronically, the reasons that they prefer electronic redaction included professional look of the redactions, time savings, efficiency and “environmental friendliness” of doing it electronically. 

For us, it's exciting moving into those areas and our partnerships continue to be exciting, as well.  We have partnerships with LexisNexis and Clearwell, both of which are unaffected by the recent acquisitions.  So, that's what's new at IGC.

Thanks, Christine, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

eDiscovery Trends: George Socha of Socha Consulting
 

This is the first of the 2012 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the emerging trends in eDiscovery that will have the greatest impact in 2012?
  2. Which trend(s), if any, haven’t emerged to this point like you thought they would?
  3. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is George Socha.  A litigator for 16 years, George is President of Socha Consulting LLC, offering services as an electronic discovery expert witness, special master and advisor to corporations, law firms and their clients, and legal vertical market software and service providers in the areas of electronic discovery and automated litigation support. George has also been co-author of the leading survey on the electronic discovery market, The Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey; last year he and Tom Gelbmann converted the Survey into Apersee, an online system for selecting eDiscovery providers and their offerings.  In 2005, he and Tom Gelbmann launched the Electronic Discovery Reference Model project to establish standards within the eDiscovery industry – today, the EDRM model has become a standard in the industry for the eDiscovery life cycle and there are nine active projects with over 300 members from 81 participating organizations.  George has a J.D. for Cornell Law School and a B.A. from the University of Wisconsin – Madison.

What do you consider to be the emerging trends in eDiscovery that will have the greatest impact in 2012?

I may have said this last year too, but it holds true even more this year – if there's an emerging trend, it's the trend of people talking about the emerging trend.  It started last year and this year every person in the industry seems to be delivering the emerging trend.  Not to be too crass about it, but often the message is, "Buy our stuff", a message that is not especially helpful.

Regarding actual emerging trends, each year we all try to sum up legal tech in two or three words.  The two words for this year can be “predictive coding.”  Use whatever name you want, but that's what everyone seems to be hawking and talking about at LegalTech this year.  This does not necessarily mean they really can deliver.  It doesn't mean they know what “predictive coding” is.  And it doesn't mean they've figured out what to do with “predictive coding.”  Having said that, expanding the use of machine assisted review capabilities as part of the e-discovery process is a important step forward.  It also has been a while coming.  The earliest I can remember working with a client, doing what's now being called predictive coding, was in 2003.  A key difference is that at that time they had to create their own tools.  There wasn't really anything they could buy to help them with the process.

Which trend(s), if any, haven’t emerged to this point like you thought they would?

One thing I don't yet hear is discussion about using predictive coding capabilities as a tool to assist with determining what data to preserve in the first place.  Right now the focus is almost exclusively on what do you do once you’ve “teed up” data for review, and then how to use predictive coding to try to help with the review process.

Think about taking the predictive coding capabilities and using them early on to make defensible decisions about what to and what not to preserve and collect.  Then consider continuing to use those capabilities throughout the e-discovery process.  Finally, look into using those capabilities to more effectively analyze the data you're seeing, not just to determine relevance or privilege, but also to help you figure out how to handle the matter and what to do on a substantive level.

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?

Well, Legal Tech continues to have been taken over by electronic discovery.  As a result, we tend to overlook whole worlds of technologies that can be used to support and enhance the practice of law. It is unfortunate that in our hyper-focus on e-discovery, we risk losing track of those other capabilities.

What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

With regard to EDRM, we recently announced that we have hit key milestones in five projects.  Our EDRM Enron Email Data Set has now officially become an Amazon public dataset, which I think will mean wider use of the materials.

We announced the publication of our Model Code of Conduct, which was five years in the making.  We have four signatories so far, and are looking forward to seeing more organizations sign on.

We announced the publication of version 2.0 of our EDRM XML schema.  It's a tightened-up schema, reorganized so that it should be a bit easier to use and more efficient in the operation.

With the Metrics project, we are beginning to add information to a database that we've developed to gather metrics, the objective being to be able to make available metrics with an empirical basis, rather than the types of numbers bandied about today, where no one seems to know how they were arrived at. Also, last year the Uniform Task Billing Management System (UTBMS) code set for litigation was updated.  The codes to use for tracking e-discovery activities were expanded from a single code that covered not just e-discovery but other activities, to a number of codes based on the EDRM Metrics code set.

On the Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM) side, we recently published a joint white paper with ARMA.  The paper cross-maps the EDRMs Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM) with ARMA's Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles (GARP).  We look forward to more collaborative materials coming out of the two organizations.

As for Apersee, we continue to allow consumers search the data on the site for free, but we also are longer charging providers a fee for their information to be available.  Instead, we now have two sponsors and some advertising on the site.  This means that any provider can put information in, and everyone can search that information.  The more data that goes in, the more useful the searching process comes because.  All this fits our goal of creating a better way to match consumers with the providers who have the services, software, skills and expertise that the consumers actually need.

And on a consulting and testifying side, I continue to work a broad array of law firms; corporate and governmental consumers of e-discovery services and software; and providers offering those capabilities.

Thanks, George, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

eDiscovery Trends: “Assisted” is the Key Word for Technology Assisted Review
 

As noted in our blog post entitled 2012 Predictions – By The Numbers, almost all of the sets of eDiscovery predictions we reviewed (9 out of 10) predicted a greater emphasis on Technology Assisted Review (TAR) in the coming year.  It was one of our predictions, as well.  And, during all three days at LegalTech New York (LTNY) a couple of weeks ago, sessions were conducted that addressed technology assisted review concepts and best practices.

While some equate technology assisted review with predictive coding, other technology approaches such as conceptual clustering are also increasing in popularity.  They qualify as TAR approaches, as well.  However, for purposes of this blog post, we will focus on predictive coding.

Over a year ago, I attended a Virtual LegalTech session entitled Frontiers of E-Discovery: What Lawyers Need to Know About “Predictive Coding” and wrote a blog post from that entitled What the Heck is “Predictive Coding”?  The speakers for the session were Jason R. Baron, Maura Grossman and Bennett Borden (Jason and Bennett are previous thought leader interviewees on this blog).  The panel gave the best descriptive definition that I’ve seen yet for predictive coding, as follows:

“The use of machine learning technologies to categorize an entire collection of documents as responsive or non-responsive, based on human review of only a subset of the document collection. These technologies typically rank the documents from most to least likely to be responsive to a specific information request. This ranking can then be used to “cut” or partition the documents into one or more categories, such as potentially responsive or not, in need of further review or not, etc.”

It’s very cool technology and capable of efficient and accurate review of the document collection, saving costs without sacrificing quality of review (in some cases, it yields even better results than traditional manual review).  However, there is one key phrase in the definition above that can make or break the success of the predictive coding process: “based on human review of only a subset of the document collection”. 

Key to the success of any review effort, whether linear or technology assisted, is knowledge of the subject matter.  For linear review, knowledge of the subject matter usually results in preparation of high quality review instructions that (assuming the reviewers competently follow those instructions) result in a high quality review.  In the case of predictive coding, use of subject matter experts (SMEs) to review a core subset of documents (typically known as a “seed set”) and make determinations regarding that subset is what enables the technology in predictive coding to “predict” the responsiveness and importance of the remaining documents in the collection.  The more knowledgeable the SMEs are in creating the “seed set”, the more accurate the “predictions” will be.

And, as is the case with other processes such as document searching, sampling the results (by determining the appropriate sample size of responsive and non-responsive items, randomly selecting those samples and reviewing both groups – responsive and non-responsive – to test the results) will enable you to determine how effective the process was in predictively coding the document set.  If sampling shows that the process yielded inadequate results, take what you’ve learned from the sample set review and apply it to create a more accurate “seed set” for re-categorizing the document collection.  Sampling will enable you to defend the accuracy of the predictive coding process, while saving considerable review costs.

So, what do you think?  Have you utilized predictive coding in any of your reviews?  How did it work for you?  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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Trends: International Trade Commission Considers Proportionality Proposal
 

As eDiscovery costs continue to escalate, proposals to bring proportionality to the eDiscovery process have become increasingly popular, such as this model order to limit eDiscovery in patent cases proposed by Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall Rader last year (which was adopted for use in this case).  In January, Chief Judge Rader and three members of the Council (Council Chairman Ed Reines of Weil, Tina Chappell of Intel Corporation, and John Whealan, Associate Dean of Intellectual Property Studies at the George Washington University School of Law) presented a proposal to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) to streamline eDiscovery in section 337 investigations.

Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337), the USITC conducts investigations into allegations of certain unfair practices in import trade. Section 337 declares the infringement of certain statutory intellectual property rights and other forms of unfair competition in import trade to be unlawful practices. Most Section 337 investigations involve allegations of patent or registered trademark infringement.

The proposal tracks the approach of the district court eDiscovery model order that is being adopted in several district courts and under consideration in others. Chairman Reines described the proposal as flexible, reasonably simple, and easy to administer. Under the proposal, litigants would:

  • Indicate whether ESI such as email is being sought or not;
  • Presumptively limit the number of custodians whose files will be searched, the locations of those documents, and the search terms that will be used (if litigants exceed the specified limits, they would assume the additional costs);
  • Use focused search terms limited to specific contested issues; and
  • Allow privileged documents to be exchanged without losing privilege.

For more regarding the regarding the USITC proposal to streamline eDiscovery in section 337 investigations, including reactions from USITC members, click to see the USITC press release here.

So, what do you think?  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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Trends: Announcing Second Annual LTNY Thought Leader Series!
 

In our efforts to continue to bring our readers perspectives from various thought leaders throughout the eDiscovery community, eDiscoveryDaily has published several thought leader interviews over the nearly 1 1/2 years since our inception.  Last year at LegalTech New York (LTNY), we were able to conduct interviews with several eDiscovery industry thought leaders and announced the schedule for those interviews after the show.  Click here to see the schedule for last year’s interviews with links to each interview we conducted.

It appears that the LTNY Thought Leader interviews have become a tradition, as we were able to conduct interviews again with several industry thought leaders!  We’re pleased to introduce the schedule for the series, which will begin next Wednesday, February 15.  Something to look forward to after Valentine’s Day!

Here are the interviews that we will be publishing over the next few weeks:

Wednesday, February 15: George Socha, President of Socha Consulting LLC and co-founder of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM).  As President of Socha Consulting LLC, George offers services as an eDiscovery expert witness, special master and advisor to corporations, law firms and their clients, and legal vertical market software and service providers in the areas of electronic discovery and automated litigation support.

Friday, February 17: Christine Musil, Director of Marketing of Informative Graphics Corporation (IGC).  Christine has applied her in-depth knowledge of IGC's products and benefits to marketing initiatives, including branding, overall messaging, and public relations. She has also been a contributing author to a number of publications on archiving formats, redaction, and viewing technology in the enterprise.

Monday, February 20: Jim McGann, Vice President of Index Engines.  Jim has extensive experience with eDiscovery and Information Management in the Fortune 2000 sector and has worked for leading software firms that provided financial services and information management solutions.

Wednesday, February 22: Tom Gelbmann, Principal Analyst of Gelbmann & Associates and co-founder of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM).  Since 1993, Tom has helped law firms and Corporate Law Departments realize the full benefit of their investments in Information Technology.

Friday, February 24: Brian Schrader, Co-Founder and President of Business Intelligence Associates, Inc. (BIA).  Brian is an expert and frequent writer and speaker on eDiscovery and computer forensics topics, particularly those addressing the collection, preservation and processing functions of the eDiscovery process.

Monday, February 27: Ralph Losey, Partner and National eDiscovery Counsel for Jackson Lewis, LLP.  Ralph is also an Adjunct Professor at the University of Florida College of Law teaching eDiscovery, a prolific author of eDiscovery books and articles and the principle author and publisher of the popular e-Discovery Team® Blog.

Wednesday, February 29: Craig Ball, Law Offices of Craig D. Ball, P.C.  Craig has delivered over 600 presentations and papers to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media.  He also writes a monthly column on computer forensics and eDiscovery for Law Technology News and publishes a blog called "Ball in your Court".

Thanks to everyone for their time in participating in these interviews, especially during a busy LegalTech week!

So, what do you think?  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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Trends: Deadly Sins of Document Review

With all of the attention on Technology Assisted Review (TAR) during the LegalTech New York (LTNY) show, you would think that no one is conducting manual review anymore.  However, even the staunchest advocates of TAR that I spoke to last week indicated that manual review is still a key part of an effective review process where technology is used to identify potentially responsive and privileged ESI before the manual review process enables the final determinations to be made.

There are “dos” and “don’ts” for conducting an effective manual review.  There was an interesting article in Texas Lawyer (via Law Technology News) entitled The 7 Deadly Sins of Document Review by Dalton Young that focuses on the “don’ts”.  As review is the most expensive phase of the eDiscovery process and legal budgets are stretched to the limit, it’s important to get the most out of your spend on manual review.  With that in mind, here are the seven deadly sins of document review (along with a few of my observations):

  1. Hiring overqualified reviewers: Although there are many qualified lawyers available due to the recent recession, those lawyers often don’t have as much experience as seasoned review paralegals, who are also less expensive and less likely to leave for another offer.
  2. Failing to establish a firm time commitment: If lead counsel doesn’t clearly establish the expected review timeline up front and expect reviewers to commit to that time frame, turnover of reviewers can drive up costs and delay project completion.
  3. Failing to provide reviewers with thorough training on the review tools: Train beyond just the basics so that reviewers can take advantage of advanced software features and training starts with lead counsel.  I would adjust this point a bit: Lead counsel needs to become fully proficient on the review tools, then develop a workflow that manages the efficiency of the reviewers and train the reviewers according to that workflow.  While it may be nice for reviewers to know all of the advanced search features, full understanding of searching best practices isn’t something that can be accomplished in a single training session and should be managed by someone with considerable experience using advanced searching capabilities in an efficient and defensible manner.
  4. Failing to empower reviewers with sufficient background on the case: Providing reviewers with not just a list of expected key words, but also an understanding of the issues of the case enables them to recognize important documents that might not fit within the key words identified.  I would also add that it’s important to have regular “huddles” so that learned knowledge by selected reviewers can be shared with the entire team to maximize review effectiveness.
  5. Failing to foster bonds within the review team: Just like any other team member, reviewers like to know that they’re an important part of the cause and that their work is appreciated, so treating them to lunch or an occasional happy hour can foster a more enjoyable work environment and increase reviewer retention.
  6. Failing to predetermine tags and codes before the project begins: A lead member of the law firm should complete an overview of the discovery to identify the process and establish tags up front instead of “on the fly” as review progresses (even though that tag list will often need to be supplemented regardless how well the upfront overview is conducted).  I would add inclusion of one or more subject matter experts in that upfront process to help identify those tags.
  7. Providing reviewers with a too-structured work environment: The author indicates that counsel should “consider providing a relaxed, somewhat self-directed work environment”.  The key here is “somewhat”, but flexibility in start and stop work times and break/lunch times can enable you to keep good reviewers who may need some flexibility.  Regular monitoring of reviewer metrics will enable the review manager to confirm that reviewer performance is not adversely affected by increased flexibility, or adjust accordingly if the review environment becomes too lax.

So, what do you think?  Are there other “deadly sins” that the author doesn’t mention?  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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Trends: Wednesday LTNY Sessions
 

As noted Monday and yesterday, LegalTech New York 2012 (LTNY) is happening this week and eDiscoveryDaily is here to report about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show.  Last chance to check out the show if you’re in the New York area!  The weather is great and there are still several sessions (both paid and free) available and over 225 exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

As noted the past two days, we have been interviewing several industry thought leaders to see what they think are the significant trends for 2012 and, which of those are evident at LTNY.  We have conducted several exciting interviews and will announce the series of thought leader interviews after the show and identify when each will be published.  Mark your calendars!

Perform a “find” on today’s LTNY conference schedule for “discovery” and you’ll get 35 hits (short day).  Here are some of today’s sessions in the main conference tracks:

10:30 – 11:45 AM:

Technology Assisted Review (TAR): When to Use It and How to Defend It

How do you know whether the case you have before you is an appropriate one for TAR? What do you need to know in order to ensure that your implementation of TAR is defensible?

Judge Andrew Peck has written that computer-assisted coding should be used in those cases where it will help further the goals of FRCP 1 to "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive" resolution of cases. We will examine this question through the lens of the legal discovery framework that guides parties and courts alike in all federal litigation: the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, since the best defense for any search methodology is always agreement between the parties, we will also discuss the Sedona Cooperation Proclamation.

Audience members will leave this session with an understanding of what questions need to be asked and answered to determine when TAR should be a part of the overall litigation strategy and how that decision can be defended.

Panelists are: Maura R. Grossman, Counsel,  Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; The Honorable Frank Maas, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York.  Moderator: Ann Marie Gibbs, Esq., National Director of Consulting, Daegis.

Moving from a Reactive to a Proactive Approach in International eDiscovery

The majority of companies in the US are still reacting to eDiscovery requests. However, given the increasing awareness of proactive eDiscovery benefits, more and more are adapting a more aggressive proactive strategy. Companies that operate globally as well as those headquartered outside the US are catching up quick as well, but complexities associated with global litigation readiness make this task infinitely more challenging due to vast differences in local laws in regards to document retention and information management regulations. This session will focus on developing proactive global document retention policies, assuring multi-jurisdictional compliance as well as best practices of global data preservation as well as other proactive techniques assuring success of any global eDiscovery project.

Speaker is: Owen O'Connor, Managing Director, Cernam Online Evidence.  Moderator: George Rudoy, Founder & CEO, Integrated Legal Technology, LLC.

The GARP® Principles and eDiscovery

Attendees will hear from experts on the GARP Principles and eDiscovery as well as:

  • Understand the importance of proactive records management through the eight GARP® Principles
  • Revisit the GARP® Principles and learn how their role is magnified by recent case law
  • Learn what to do before eDiscovery: how GARP® precedes and complements the EDRM

Panelists are: Julie J. Colgan, CRM, Director, Information Governance, Client Advisory Services, Merrill Corporation; Fred Pulzello, CRM, Board of Directors, ARMA International and George J. Socha, Jr., Esq., President, Socha Consulting.  Moderator: Howard Sklar, Senior Corporate Counsel, Recommind.

11:45 AM – 12:45 PM:

Litigation Preparedness Through Effective Data Governance

Be prepared. This panel will go through the benefits of data governance in your litigation preparedness and discuss benefits such as:

  • Auto-classification of legacy and newly created content
  • What is email management and is it ready for prime-time?
  • Review the court's findings on the complexities of ESI, including metadata, native formats, back-up tapes, mobile devices, and legacy technology
  • Key questions to ask before outsourcing ESI to the cloud

Panelists are: Michael Mills, CEO, Neota Logic; Alice McNeil, Chief Information Officer, Littler Mendelson; Fred Pulzello, CRM, Board of Directors, ARMA International; Derek Schueren, GM Information Access & Governance, Recommind and George J. Socha, Jr., Esq., President, Socha Consulting.  Moderator: Nick Patience, Director, Product Marketing & Strategy, Recommind.

1:45 – 3:00 PM:

Technology Assisted Review (TAR): Opening, Exploring and Bringing Transparency to the Black Box

It's time to set the record straight on technology assisted review (TAR). Some people object to what they mistakenly believe is the "black box" nature of the technology, while others are hesitant to adopt an approach that they perceive as novel. This panel will dispel the myths, clarify the definitions, and shed light on the so-called "black box" of technology assisted review.

Some audience members may be surprised to learn that technology assisted review is nothing new. Search and clustering technology, for example, have been commonplace for many years. The phrase "technology assisted review" simply refers to a more efficient use of people, process, and technology that is the next evolutionary step in electronic discovery. As with other legal technologies, human expertise and a proven workflow are the keys to success. This panel will clearly explain what technology assisted review is all about so that you can make an informed decision about adopting it in your organization.

Panelists are: David Horrigan, Analyst, eDiscovery and Information Governance, The 451 Group; David Leone, Esq., Director of Litigation Support Services, Saul Ewing LLP; Douglas W. Oard, Ph.D., University of Maryland College of Information Studies; Doug Stewart, Director of Technology, Daegis and Mike Stringer, Co-Founder & Managing Partner, Datascope Analytics.

Practical Handbook of Conducting eDiscovery – Tips and Tricks

An educational panel shares their knowledge on conducting a global eDiscovery initiative. Unique solutions to challenges in selected countries and regions as well as cross jurisdictional data movement will be discussed. Navigating unique cultural and procedural obstacles, handling multi-lingual data sets as well as strategic positioning of hosting data centers are just a few topics to be covered during this informative and interactive session.

Speaker is: Owen O'Connor, Managing Director, Cernam Online Evidence.  Moderator: George Rudoy, Founder & CEO, Integrated Legal Technology, LLC.

eDiscovery Circa 2015: Will Aggressive Preservation/Collection and Predictive Coding be Commonplace?

Who's holding back on Predictive Coding, clients or outside counsel? This session will discuss if aggressive preservation/collection of predictive coding will become commonplace as well as:

  • How aggressive should clients be with preservation/collection?
  • How to use effective searching, sampling, and targeting tools and techniques to not over-collect

Panelists are: Stephanie "Tess" Blair, Partner, Morgan Lewis; Julie J. Colgan, CRM, Director, Information Governance, Client Advisory Services, Merrill Corporation; David Kessler, Partner, Fulbright & Jaworski; Ralph C. Losey, Partner and National e-Discovery Counsel, Jackson Lewis, LLP and Robert Trenchard, Partner, WilmerHale.  Moderator: Craig Carpenter, VP of Marketing, Recommind.

In addition to these, there are other eDiscovery-related sessions today.  For a complete description for all sessions today, click here.

So, what do you think?  What did you think of the show this year?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Tuesday LTNY Sessions
 

As noted yesterday, LegalTech New York 2012 (LTNY) is happening this week and eDiscoveryDaily is here to report about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show.  There’s still time to check out the show if you’re in the New York area with a number of sessions (both paid and free) available and over 225 exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

While at the show, we will also be interviewing several industry thought leaders to see what they think are the significant trends for 2012 and, which of those are evident at LTNY.  After the show, we will announce the series of thought leader interviews and identify when each will be published.  Mark your calendars!

Perform a “find” on today’s LTNY conference schedule for “discovery” and you’ll get more than 100 hits.  Yikes!  More eDiscovery sessions happening!  Here are some of the sessions in the main conference tracks:

10:30 – 11:45 AM:

Advice from Counsel: Top Legal Minds in the Country Share their eDiscovery Tips

For the third consecutive year, Ari Kaplan of Ari Kaplan Advisors surveyed corporate counsel of Fortune 1000 companies, asking their advice for implementing cost-effective and defensible eDiscovery programs. From tips for companies just beginning to develop their eDiscovery programs to outlining their process dealing with multinational litigation or investigations, the feedback was varied and covered a wide range of topics. Although it's clear that each corporate environment requires a customized approach, legal leaders can evaluate the advice given in relation to their own eDiscovery requirements which may ultimately lead to cost savings and efficiency gains.

Attendees of this session will learn about:

  • Top advice from peers for creating effective eDiscovery programs
  • Strategies for measuring savings and predicting matter costs
  • Perspectives on utilizing in-house eDiscovery teams vs. outsourcing vendors
  • Best practices for multinational discovery and additional resources

 Panelists are: Vincent M. Catanzaro, Senior Counsel, Global Discovery Manager, DuPont Legal; Ari Kaplan, Principal, Ari Kaplan Advisors; Lynn S. Looby, Managing Counsel, Director of The Discovery Expertise Committee, The Dow Chemical Company; and Renee Meisel, Legal Director, Dell Inc.  Moderator: Joe Looby, Senior Managing Director, FTI Technology.

Ways to Manage eDiscovery Costs

Preparation is everything. This educational session will highlight first practical steps into Litigation Readiness as well as:

  • How to best filter down data – new technology solutions 2011/2012
  • Legal Process Outsourcing – onshore/offshore or near shore – developments in 2011

Panelists are: Bob Rowe, Huron Legal; Gail Foster, Special Counsel, Baker Botts; The Honorable Ronald J. Hedges (ret.), Adjunct Professor of Law; Former United States Magistrate Judge; Elizabeth Jaworski,  Director, Legal Operations, Motorola Mobility, Inc.; Tania Mabrey, Practice Technology Project Manager, Crowell and Moring LLP; Jeffrey W. McKenna, CIPP, E-Discovery and Privacy Attorney, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; Carol Southerland, J.D., Managing Director, Huron Legal.

A "Stormy" Subject…Exploring Cloud-Based eDiscovery

Can your organization better manage costs and increase control over discovery by bringing eDiscovery tools in-house or in-firm? Which components of the EDRM are best insourced or outsourced? What are the advantages and drawbacks of using the cloud for eDiscovery?

In this session, the panel will:

  • Explore "hot-off-the-presses" survey statistics on insourcing v. outsourcing market trends
  • Discuss the pros and cons inherent in the cloud/SaaS v. behind-the-firewall software debate

Panelists are: Ann Marie Riberdy, Technology and Litigation Support Manager, Wilmer Hale; Lisa Markay, US Head of Information Risk Management, Barclays; Michele Lange, Director of Thought Leadership & Industry Relations, Kroll Ontrack.  Moderator: Jonathan Sachs, Northeast Regional Manager – Business Development, Kroll Ontrack.

12:30 – 1:30 PM:

Plenary General Session: Technology Assisted Discovery – OPEN TO ALL

The volume and complexity of information today presents a significant challenge to those involved in eDiscovery. With ESI arising in many different channels, and communicated across an ever more mobile society, the legal community is looking toward technology to assist more broadly in the discovery process. According to Judge Andrew Peck, "computer-assisted coding should be used in those cases where it will help 'secure the just, speedy and inexpensive' (Fed. R. Civ. P. 1) determination of cases in our e-discovery world." During this plenary session, we will explore the use of technology assisted review to make coding recommendations that dramatically accelerate review and radically reduce costs and risk.

Panelists are: Tom Lidbury, Litigation Partner, E-Discovery Group Leader, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP; The Honorable Frank Maas, Magistrate Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; Browning Marean, Senior Counsel & Co-Chair, Electronic Discovery Readiness and Response Group, DLA Piper; The Honorable Andrew J. Peck, Magistrate Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; Michael Sullivan, CEO Protect Enterprise Markets, Autonomy and Jessica L. Watts, Discovery Counsel, Office of General Counsel, HP.  Moderator: Deborah Baron, VP, eDiscovery, Autonomy.

2:00 – 3:15 PM:

Budgeting for eDiscovery: Exploring your Approach to Cost Control and Transparency

The ability to predict costs more accurately will be of increasing focus as corporations, law firms and government agencies aim to streamline eDiscovery into standard business process. The commonly used line-item approach has a number of benefits, yet new budgeting models are emerging that may give some corporate clients greater control and transparency. The success of either approach may depend on the company's litigation profile and types of matters faced, as well as the number of in-house resources, personnel and technology. Which model is best for you?

Session attendees will learn:

  • The key attributes of two common eDiscovery models that are explicitly focused on cost control
  • How these attributes can increase or reduce eDiscovery costs and assist in litigation readiness
  • Important questions related to pricing, process and technology that better determine eDiscovery program costs
  • How to conduct a self-assessment test to help rate the current level of eDiscovery budgeting transparency in your organization

Panelists are: David Horrigan, Analyst, eDiscovery and Information Governance, The 451 Group; Mike Knight, Partner, Jones Day; Lisa Markey, Vice President, Information Risk Management, Barclays Capital.  Moderator: Sophie Ross, Senior Managing Director, FTI Technology.

Part One – A GC's Nightmare: A US eDiscovery Request into Europe

This session will cover recent case scenarios of eDiscovery into Europe as well as:

  • Cross border issues from the GC's perspective
  • Costs implications, weighing out the options

Panelists are: Craig Cannon, Assistant General Counsel & Discovery Counsel, Bank of America; Rich Chandler, EVP, Chief Legal Officer & General Counsel, CB&I; Chris Dale, The eDisclosure Information Project; The Honorable Frank Maas, Magistrate Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; Browning Marean, Senior Counsel & Co-Chair, Electronic Discovery Readiness and Response Group, DLA Piper; Vince Neicho, Litigation Support Manager, Allen & Overy LLP; Farrah Pepper, Executive Discovery Counsel, Litigation & Legal Policy, GE; Master Steven Whitaker, Senior Master of the Senior Courts of England and Wales in the Queen's Bench Division; The Queen's Remembrancer.  Moderator: Nigel Murray, Managing Director, Huron Legal.

Under Fire: Defending and Challenging a Motion Against Technology-Assisted Review

Intelligent Review? Predictive Coding? Smart review? Whatever you call it, amidst growing data volumes and dwindling resources, traditional linear document review is quickly going the way of the dinosaur.

In this session, the panel will:

  • Explore the "what", "why", and "how" behind technology-assisted review
  • Defend and challenge a hypothetical motion attacking the defensibility of this innovative technology
  • Provide you with tips to help overcome your organization's objections to using intelligent review technology

Panelists are: Emily A. Cobb, Associate and Senior Discovery Attorney, Ropes & Gray; Edward Rippey, Partner and Chair of E-Discovery Practice Group, Covington & Burling LLP; Katie Winseck, Solutions Architect, Kroll Ontrack.  Moderator: Gilbert Greenman, Senior Consultant for Discovery and Professional Training, Williams & Connolly.

3:45 – 5:00 PM:

The Future of Legal Review: Increasing Productivity and Reducing Costs

From predictive coding to analytics and ECA, ediscovery practitioners have a number of technology options available today to speed legal review. But can technology alone help solve ediscovery cost and scale issues? This interactive session will focus on the tools and processes that will shape legal review in the years to come, and include discussion on case law, productivity benchmarks and cost containment.

Session attendees will learn:

  • How to determine which matters are best suited for predictive coding or predictive analytics and why the role of the human reviewer is growing (not lessening) when these workflows are utilized
  • Why sophisticated software designed to decrease the burden of review depends on statistical sampling and quality-control processes
  • What case law is most relevant to support the use of predictive workflows and how this should best inform case strategy
  • What corporate counsel requested most of their outside counsel in 2011 to reduce costs and what they plan to request in 2012

Panelists are: The Honorable Ronald J. Hedges (ret.), Adjunct Professor of Law; Former United States Magistrate Judge; Michelle Mahoney, Director Legal Logistics, Mallesons Stephen Jaques; Katey Wood, Analyst, Enterprise Strategy Group.  Moderator: Manfred Gabriel, Managing Director, FTI Technology.

Part Two – A GC's Nightmare: A US eDiscovery Request Into Europe

This session is a continuation of the previous and as it continues to address eDiscovery in Europe, it will also cover:

  • News from Sedona
  • A view from the desk of a German data commissioner

Panelists are: Craig Cannon, Assistant General Counsel & Discovery Counsel, Bank of America; Rich Chandler, EVP, Chief Legal Officer & General Counsel, CB&I; Chris Dale, The eDisclosure Information Project; The Honorable Frank Maas, Magistrate Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; Browning Marean, Senior Counsel & Co-Chair, Electronic Discovery Readiness and Response Group, DLA Piper; Vince Neicho, Litigation Support Manager, Allen & Overy LLP; Farrah Pepper, Executive Discovery Counsel, Litigation & Legal Policy, GE; Master Steven Whitaker, Senior Master of the Senior Courts of England and Wales in the Queen's Bench Division; The Queen's Remembrancer.  Moderator: Nigel Murray, Managing Director, Huron Legal.

Corporate Legal eDiscovery: Six Topics in 60 Minutes

Join our discussion of eDiscovery from the corporate perspective. We'll cover a variety of topics, as selected by ILTA members, that range from the infrastructure needed to support in-house eDiscovery, pitfalls to avoid, practical strategies for managing the process, to vendor management, case closure and more.

Panelists are: Alexander Arato, VP, Associate General Counsel, CA Technologies; Glenn O'Brien, E-Discovery Manager, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.  Moderator: Joanne Lane, Director – eDiscovery Strategy and Litigation Support, MetLife.

News Flash! Exploring Hot eDiscovery Trends

E-Discovery evolves at the speed of light. If your organization is standing still, you are losing ground.

In this session, the panel will:

  • Explore how e-discovery evolved in 2011, with a look into how it will continue to change in 2012
  • Analyze whether potential amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are even possible, and what the amendments might entail
  • Discuss "hot" trends impacting e-discovery such as social media

Panelists are: Meghan Podolny, Associate, Hunton & Williams; Alitia Faccone, Partner, McCarter & English; Honorable David J. Waxse, US District Court, District of Kansas.  Moderator: Andrea Gibson, Director – Product Development, Kroll Ontrack.

In addition to these, there are other eDiscovery-related sessions today.  For a complete description for all sessions today, click here.

So, what do you think?  Are you planning to attend LTNY this year?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Welcome to LegalTech New York 2012!
 

Today is the start of LegalTech New York 2012 (LTNY) and, once again, eDiscoveryDaily is here to report about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show.  Over the next three days, we will provide a description each day of some of the sessions related to eDiscovery to give you a sense of the topics being covered.  If you’re in the New York area, I encourage you to check out the show – there are a number of sessions (both paid and free) available and over 225 exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

While at the show, we will also be interviewing several industry thought leaders to see what they think are the significant trends for 2012 and, which of those are evident at LTNY.  After the show, we will announce the series of thought leader interviews and identify when each will be published.  Mark your calendars!

Perform a “find” on today’s LTNY conference schedule for “discovery” and you’ll get 96 hits.  So, there is plenty to talk about!  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:

10:30 – 11:45 AM:

Standardizing Processes for Discovery Management and Cost Management – An ROI Your GC Can Appreciate

Given the significant potential expense of eDiscovery, in-house and outside counsel must understand the eDiscovery process in the context of not only legal compliance and the current matter, but also in the context of financial impact/cost. In short, eDiscovery must be approached and understood operationally and financially. This panel will address the standards of eDiscovery accountability, efficiency and effectiveness and explain how a repeatable business process applied in the context of eDiscovery can ensure that your future eDiscovery processes are treated just like any other critical business process.

Panelists are: Kim-An Hernandez, Senior Counsel, International Paper; Anthony Knaapen, Manager, Litigation Discovery, Chevron Corporation; Meagan Thwaites, Counsel—CRM Legal Department, Boston Scientific Corporation; and Kelli Brooks, National Partner-in-Charge, Evidence and Discovery Management, KPMG LLP.

Top Five Ethical Concerns for Lawyers in eDiscovery

This panel will address how lawyers can recognize and comply with their ethical obligations while:

  • Carrying out and supervising the duty to preserve relevant ESI
  • Meeting and conferring on eDiscovery issues with the appropriate level of transparency and cooperation
  • Managing the processing, review, and production of large volumes of documents and information
  • Employing sophisticated eDiscovery software tools and processes
  • Accessing and using information from social media sites in discovery

Panelists are: Ruth Hauswirth, Director of Litigation and eDiscovery, Cooley LLP; Courtney Barton, Assistant General Counsel, AOL; M. James Daley, Partner, Daley & Fey LLP; Nicholas Jafarieh, Managing Director & Associate General Counsel, Sallie Mae.  Moderator: Maureen O'Neill, Vice President of Discovery Strategy, DiscoverReady LLC.

12:30 – 1:30 PM:

Plenary General Session: Man vs. Machine: The Promise/Challenge of Predictive Coding and Other Disruptive Technologies – OPEN TO ALL

In 2012, emerging, disruptive technologies are showing great promise for the legal field, specifically in the areas of classification, retention, and review. As technology begins to understand the context of information and apply it to the nuances of legal decisions in a way once exclusively reserved for the human practitioner, one must examine how technology will change the legal practices of today. This session will examine predictive coding as a case study of how disruptive technologies have both great promise and legitimate challenges in the Legal industry.

In one corner is the human document review process. While well-established it's also now clear that the eyes-on methodology can have significant drawbacks both in cost and accuracy. In the other corner, a range of artificial intelligence technologies have shown promise in enabling enhanced precision and recall through a range of Technology Assisted Review (TAR) features such as email threading, clustering, concept search and predictive coding. And yet, despite the buzz they haven't gained widespread adoption.

In this general session, vocal Jurist and U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York, Andrew Peck, leads a panel of industry experts that will discuss a range of hot topics including:

  • How defensible are these TAR techniques and do they merely need to be more accurate than an average human document review?
  • Are certain use cases (like internal investigations and governmental inquiries) better suited for the use of TAR tools?
  • How does the role of attorneys change in a TAR workflow?

Panelists are: Maura R. Grossman, Counsel, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; Ralph C. Losey, Partner and National eDiscovery Counsel, Jackson Lewis, LLP; The Honorable Andrew J. Peck, Magistrate Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Moderator: Dean Gonsowski, eDiscovery Counsel, Symantec.

2:00 – 3:15 PM:

eDiscovery Process Validation Sampling – How Confident Can You be in the Results of Your Software Assisted/Predictive Coding Process?

The increasing volume and complexity of electronically stored information and the cost of its review continues to drive the need for development of sophisticated, high-speed processing, indexing and categorization or "predictive coding" software in response to litigation and regulatory proceedings. Since the majority of these tools rely on sophisticated, proprietary algorithms that are frequently referred to as "black box" technologies, there has been a reluctance to exploit their expected productivity gains for fear that the results they produce may be challenged and rejected as not meeting the required standard of "reasonableness." Effective use of sampling can overcome this concern by demonstrating with a stated level of confidence that the system has produced results at least as consistent and reliable as those obtained by having attorneys review the documents without sophisticated technology support. This panel will cover testing, based on statistical sampling, the quality improvements and cost savings promised by "predictive coding" technology.

Panelists are: Marla Bergman, Director of eDiscovery, Goldman Sachs; Wayne Matus, Partner, National Leader – Information Law and Electronic Discovery Practice, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP; George J. Socha, Jr., Esq., President, Socha Consulting; Chris Paskach, Forensic Technology Services – Americas Network Leader, KPMG LLP.

Understanding Automated Review— Utilizing Predictive Coding as Part of Your Comprehensive Discovery Process

For more than two years, there has been an avalanche of commentary predicting how automated review and predictive coding tools can and will be used to supplement or replace current eDiscovery processes. Despite all of the buzz, relatively few corporations and law firms have taken the plunge into automated review. This reluctance may be based on the wide variety of service offerings and technologies that are being marketed as "automated" review tools, as well as a lack of transparency into how automated tools operate as part of a larger eDiscovery strategy.

During this session, leading practitioners and in-house counsel will demystify automated review. Key discussion points will include:

  • An overview of the automated review and predictive coding landscape
  • How to blend traditional manual document review with automated review options
  • Practical approaches to automating the review process
  • Snapshots into how leading companies are using automated review as part of their existing discovery processes

Panelists are: Craig Cannon, Assistant General Counsel & Discovery Counsel, Bank of America; Jessica Watts, AGC & Discovery Counsel, HP; Michele Spak, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Duke Energy; Matt Miller, SVP & IP Practice Group Leader, DiscoverReady LLC.

3:45 – 5:00 PM:

More Predictive than Ever – Predictive Coding, Predictive Costs and Predictive Outcomes – New Techniques to Manage and Control Electronic Discovery

Judge Andrew Peck cast 2011 as the year of predictive coding. A year on, where do we stand? Predictive coding is part of a paradigm shift in electronic discovery, as practitioners leverage technology and new business practices to regain control of the eDiscovery business process. Using case studies, the panelists will review some of the dramatic changes that are emerging in the conduct of eDiscovery. Sound predictive coding is fundamental to these changes. Other key changes include process transparency, early learning, rebalancing the outsourcing-insourcing mix, stratified review and statistically-driven quality assurance. Following Judge Peck, the panel will explore how predictive coding and emerging related business practices can be used to "`secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive` (Fed. R. Civ. P. 1) determination of cases in our eDiscovery world."

Panelists are: Daniel Garrie, Partner, Law & Forensics LLC (formerly FSRDG LLC) and General Counsel, Pulse; Kathryn Goetz, Vice President of Litigation Discovery, Qualcomm; Maura R. Grossman, Counsel,  Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz; Joel Mitnick, Partner and Co-Chair of eDiscovery Task Force, Sidley Austin LLP. Moderator: Warwick Sharp, Vice President, Equivio.

Evolution of eDiscovery Decisions in Financial Services

In the past, financial services eDiscovery cases and regulatory settlements focused on failure to retain records pursuant to the SEC, or the inability to access those records and produce them in a reasonable amount of time. Adverse inferences in Zubulake and Coleman v. Morgan Stanley come to mind, as well as widely publicized settlements between financial services companies and regulators. Join us for a lively discussion of the following topics:

  • What should you anticipate in terms of future challenges with eDiscovery?
  • Are you prepared for discovery related to audio files and social media?
  • What can we anticipate, if anything, from Dodd-Frank rulemaking and its impact on the demands on your eDiscovery process?
  • Will budget constraints on regulators impact the ability to negotiate terms of investigation, or even settlements?
  • Will automated review reduce the burden on you or your clients, or will financial services litigants and regulators reject efforts to incorporate automated solutions into the eDiscovery process?

Panelists are: Tom Shpetner, Director of Equities Compliance – Americas, RBC Capital Markets; Glenn MacFarlane, Executive Director, eDiscovery, JPMorgan Chase; Amy Hinzmann, SVP & Financial Services Practice Group Leader, DiscoverReady LLC.

In addition to these, there are other eDiscovery-related sessions today.  For a complete description for all sessions today, click here.

I always promise this, but always seem to get too busy to deliver, but I’m bound and determined to make good on my promise this year: eDiscoveryDaily will also be “tweeting” periodically throughout LTNY, so feel free to check out our updates at twitter.com/Cloud9Discovery.

So, what do you think?  Are you planning to attend LTNY this year?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Small Cases Need Love Too!
 

There was an interesting article in Law Technology News from Tom O’Connor, a previous thought leader interviewee on this blog, regarding the dilemma associated with affordability of eDiscovery technology for small cases (entitled Pricing: The Small Case E-Discovery Dilemma).  Even though small cases make up the overwhelming majority of cases filed and there is ESI to manage in those cases just like there is in the big cases, eDiscovery technology has historically been cost prohibitive for the cases when compared to the amount at dispute.

To make technology work for the smaller cases, Tom makes some assumptions, including:

  • Typical ESI File Formats: The types of files you’re working with in the smaller cases are typical file formats for email and office functions.  If you get into the less common file formats, you’re more likely to need more expensive technology to handle those.
  • Host the Data Yourself: Tom assumes “that you want to host the data yourself, and that you have the equipment and skills to do so” and that small cases “demand applications that can be installed on one computer for processing and review”.  It’s an interesting assumption, the question is do many of the firms managing these small cases have both the equipment and the skills to do so? (I’m not sure that they do).
  • Smaller Volumes of ESI: Of course, it makes perfect sense that the small case would be dealing with less ESI.  As Tom notes, “[w]e're also assuming you are not dealing with terabytes of information.”  Of course not.  However, with each GB representing 50,000 pages of data (or more), it doesn’t take much volume to require technology to effectively manage the data.
  • Cooperative Relationship: Tom also states the assumption that “you have a cooperative relationship with the other side, at least in terms of dealing with EDD”.  When that’s the case, it’s a lot easier to keep eDiscovery at a proportional level.

The article goes on to look at a case starting with 800 GB that ultimately yields 200 GB of reviewable material and the potentially exorbitant costs (as much as $1 million) associated with managing a 200 GB case.  Yet, as Tom notes, “[b]ig EDD companies don't want this business — we've been told that directly by sales managers at two separate top-tier companies.”

Last year at LegalTech, several of the thought leaders that I interviewed indicated that they were seeing more technology alternatives suitable for the smaller cases and Tom mentions some of those toward the end of the article.  One of our 2012 predictions was a greater adoption of eDiscovery technology for smaller cases (as even those cases are no longer that small), attorneys are forced to embrace eDiscovery technology for these cases and, eDiscovery providers are taking note.

In addition to the trends and technology alternatives that Tom writes about, I wrote an article that was published in LJN’s Legal Tech Newsletter in September entitled e-Discovery Technology for the $100,000 (Or Less) Case that discusses some of the trends that are starting to make technology more affordable for the smaller case.  These include SaaS applications in the cloud, pricing models that promote simplified and pay-as-you-go technology pricing, advanced data culling techniques and self-service functionality that enables the firm to “do it yourself” instead of paying the vendor for those services.  This article also identifies some technology alternatives that promote those concepts to make eDiscovery technology affordable even when the amount in dispute is no more than $100,000.

If you’re a subscriber to Legal Tech Newsletter, you can get that entire issue here.  If you’re not a subscriber, but would be interested in a reprint of that article, send me an email to daustin@ediscoverydaily.com and I’ll send you a copy.

So, what do you think?  Are you able to effectively use eDiscovery technology for smaller cases?  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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.