Close
Enter your
text here

Review

Thought Leader Q&A: Chris Jurkiewicz of Venio Systems
 

Tell me about your company and the products you represent.  Venio Systems is an Electronic Discovery software solution provider specializing in early case assessment and first pass review.  Our product, Venio FPR™, allows forensic units, attorneys and litigation support teams to process, analyze, search, report, interact with and export responsive data for linear review or production.

What do you consider to be the reason for the enormous growth of early case assessment/first pass review tools in the industry?  I believe much of the growth we’ve seen in the past few years can be attributed to many factors, of which the primary one is the exponential growth of data within an organization.  The inexpensive cost of data storage available to an organization is making it easier for them to keep unnecessary data on their systems.  Companies who practice litigation and/or work with litigative data are seeking out quick and cost effective methods of funneling the necessary data from all the unnecessary data stored in these vast systems thereby making early case assessment/first pass review tools not only appealing but necessary.

Are there other areas where first pass review tools can be useful during eDiscovery?  Clients have found creative ways in using first pass review/ECA technology; recently a client utilized it to analyze a recent production received by opposing counsel. They were able to determine that the email information produced was not complete.  They were then able to force the opposing counsel to fill in the missing email gaps.

There have been several key cases related to search defensibility in the past couple of years.  How will those decisions affect organizations’ approach to ESI searching?  More organizations will have to adopt a defensible process for searching and use tools that support that process.  Venio’s software has many key features focused on search defensibility including: Search List Analysis, Wild Card Variation searching, Search Audit Reporting and Fuzzy Searching.  All searches run in Venio FPR™ are audited by user, date and time, terms, scope, and frequency.  By using these tools, clients have been able to find additional responsive files that would be otherwise missed and easily document their search approach and refinement.

How do you think the explosion of data and technology will affect the review process in the future?  I believe that technology will continue to evolve and provide innovative tools to allow for more efficient reviews of ESI.  In the past few years the industry has already seen several new technologies released such as near deduping, concept searching and clustering which have significantly improved the speed of the review.  Legal teams will have to continue to make greater utilization of these technologies to provide efficient and cost-effective review as their clients will demand it.

About Chris Jurkiewicz
Chris graduated in 2000 with a Bachelor of Science in Computer Information Systems at Marymount University in Arlington, Virginia.  He began working for On-Site Sourcing while still an intern at Marymount and became the youngest Director on On-Site’s management team within three years as the Director of their Electronic Data Discovery Division.  In 2009, Chris co-founded Venio Systems to fill a void in Early Case Assessment (ECA) technology with Venio FPR™ to provide law firms, corporations and government entities the ability to gain a comprehensive picture of their data set at the front-end; thereby, saving precious time and money on the back-end..  Chris is an industry recognized expert in the field of eDiscovery, having spoken on several eDiscovery panels and served as an eDiscovery expert witness.

Reporting from the EDRM Mid-Year Meeting
 

Launched in May 2005, the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) Project was created to address the lack of standards and guidelines in the electronic discovery market.  Now, in its sixth year of operation, EDRM has become the gold standard for…well…standards in eDiscovery.  Most references to the eDiscovery industry these days refer to the EDRM model as a representation of the eDiscovery life cycle.

At the first meeting in May 2005, there were 35 attendees, according to Tom Gelbmann of Gelbmann & Associates, co-founder of EDRM along with George Socha of Socha Consulting LLC.  Check out the preliminary first draft of the EDRM diagram – it has evolved a bit!  Most participants were eDiscovery providers and, according to Gelbmann, they asked “Do you really expect us all to work together?”  The answer was “yes”, and the question hasn’t been asked again.  Today, there are over 300 members from 81 participating organizations including eDiscovery providers, law firms and corporations (as well as some individual participants).

This week, the EDRM Mid-Year meeting is taking place in St. Paul, MN.  Twice a year, in May and October, eDiscovery professionals who are EDRM members meet to continue the process of working together on various standards projects.  EDRM has eight currently active projects, as follows:

  • Data Set: provides industry-standard, reference data sets of electronically stored information (ESI) and software files that can be used to test various aspects of eDiscovery software and services,
  • Evergreen: ensures that EDRM remains current, practical and relevant and educates about how to make effective use of the Model,
  • Information Management Reference Model (IMRM): provides a common, practical, flexible framework to help organizations develop and implement effective and actionable information management programs,
  • Jobs: develops a framework for evaluating pre-discovery and discovery personnel needs or issues,
  • Metrics: provides an effective means of measuring the time, money and volumes associated with eDiscovery activities,
  • Model Code of Conduct: evaluates and defines acceptable boundaries of ethical business practices within the eDiscovery service industry,
  • Search: provides a framework for defining and managing various aspects of Search as applied to eDiscovery workflow,
  • XML: provides a standard format for e-discovery data exchange between parties and systems, reducing the time and risk involved with data exchange.

This is my fourth year participating in the EDRM Metrics project and it has been exciting to see several accomplishments made by the group, including creation of a code schema for measuring activities across the EDRM phases, glossary definitions of those codes and tools to track early data assessment, collection and review activities.  Today, we made significant progress in developing survey questions designed to gather and provide typical metrics experienced by eDiscovery legal teams in today’s environment.

So, what do you think?  Has EDRM impacted how you manage eDiscovery?  If so, how?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Announcing eDiscovery Thought Leader Q&A Series!
 

eDiscovery Daily is excited to announce a new blog series of Q&A interviews with various eDiscovery thought leaders.  Over the next three weeks, we will publish interviews conducted with six individuals with unique and informative perspectives on various eDiscovery topics.  Mark your calendars for these industry experts!

Christine Musil is Director of Marketing for Informative Graphics Corporation, a viewing, annotation and content management software company based in Arizona.  Christine will be discussing issues associated with native redaction and redaction of Adobe PDF files.  Her interview will be published this Thursday, October 14.

Jim McGann is Vice President of Information Discovery for Index Engines. Jim has extensive experience with the eDiscovery and Information Management.  Jim will be discussing issues associated with tape backup and retrieval.  His interview will be published this Friday, October 15.

Alon Israely is a Senior Advisor in BIA’s Advisory Services group and currently oversees BIA’s product development for its core technology products.  Alon will be discussing best practices associated with “left side of the EDRM model” processes such as preservation and collection.  His interview will be published next Thursday, October 21.

Chris Jurkiewicz is Co-Founder of Venio Systems, which provides Venio FPR™ allowing legal teams to analyze data, provide an early case assessment and a first pass review of any size data set.  Chris will be discussing current trends associated with early case assessment and first pass review tools.  His interview will be published next Friday, October 22.

Kirke Snyder is Owner of Legal Information Consultants, a consulting firm specializing in eDiscovery Process Audits to help organizations lower the risk and cost of e-discovery.  Kirke will be discussing best practices associated with records and information management.  His interview will be published on Monday, October 25.

Brad Jenkins is President and CEO for Trial Solutions, which is an electronic discovery software and services company that assists litigators in the collection, processing and review of electronic information.  Brad will be discussing trends associated with SaaS eDiscovery solutions.  His interview will be published on Tuesday, October 26.

We thank all of our guests for participating!

So, what do you think?  Is there someone you would like to see interviewed for the blog?  Are you an industry expert with some information to share from your “soapbox”?  If so, please share any comments or contact me at daustin@trialsolutions.net.  We’re looking to assemble our next group of interviews now!

eDiscovery Case Study: Term List Searching for Deadline Emergencies!
 

A few weeks ago, I was preparing to conduct a Friday morning training session for a client to show them how to use FirstPass™, powered by Venio FPR™, to conduct a first pass review of their data when I received a call from the client.  “We thought we were going to have a month to review this data, but because of a judge’s ruling in the case, we now have to start depo prep for two key custodians on Monday for depositions now scheduled next week”, said Megan Moore, attorney with Steele Sturm, PLLC, in Houston.  “We have to complete our review of their files this weekend.”

So, what do you do when you have to conduct both a first pass and final review of the data in a weekend?

It was determined that Steele Sturm had to complete first pass review that Friday, so that we could prepare the potentially responsive files for an attorney review starting Saturday morning.  Steele Sturm identified a list of responsive search terms and Trial Solutions worked with the attorneys to include variations of the terms (such as proximity searches and synonyms) to finalize a list of terms to apply to the data to identify potentially responsive files.  Because FirstPass provides the ability to import and search an entire term list at once, we were able to identify potentially responsive files in a simple, two step process.  “Using FirstPass, Trial Solutions helped us cull out 75% of the collection as non-responsive, enabling our review team to focus review on the remaining 25%”, said Moore.

Once the potentially responsive files were identified, they were imported into OnDemand™, powered by ImageDepot™, for linear attorney review.  During review, the attorneys identified that some of the terms used in identifying potentially responsive files were overbroad, so additional searches were performed in OnDemand to “group tag” those files as non-responsive.  “Trial Solutions provided training and support throughout the weekend to enable our review team to quickly "tag" each file using OnDemand as to responsiveness and privilege to enable us to meet our deadline”, said Moore.

So, what do you think?  Do you have any “emergency” war stories to share?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Cost of Data Storage is Declining – Or Is It?

Recently, I was gathering information on the cost of data storage and ran across this ad from the early 1980s for a 10 MB disk drive – for $3,398! That’s MB (megabytes), not GB (gigabytes) or TB (terabytes). What a deal!

Even in 2000, storage costs were around $20 per GB, so an 8 GB drive would cost about $160.

Today, 1 TB is available for $100 or less. HP has a 2 TB external drive available at Best Buy for $140 (prices subject to change of course). That’s 7 cents per GB. Network storage drives are more expensive, but still available for around $100 per TB.

At these prices, it’s natural for online, accessible data in corporations to rise exponentially. It’s great to have more and more data readily available to you, until you are hit with litigation or regulatory requests. Then, you potentially have to go through all that data for discovery to determine what to preserve, collect, process, analyze, review and produce.

Here is what each additional GB can cost to review (based on typical industry averages):

  • 1 GB = 20,000 documents (can vary widely, depending on file formats)
  • Review attorneys typically average 60 documents reviewed per hour (for simple relevancy determinations)
  • That equals an average of 333 review hours per GB (20,000 / 60)
  • If you’re using contract reviewers at $50 per hour – each extra GB just cost you $16,650 to review (333×50)

That’s expensive storage! And, that doesn’t even take into consideration the costs to identify, preserve, collect, and process each additional GB.

Managing Storage Costs Effectively

One way to manage those costs is to limit the data retained in the first place through an effective records management program that calls for regular destruction of data not subject to a litigation hold. If you’re eliminating expired data on a regular basis, there is less data to go through the EDRM discovery “funnel” to production.

Sophisticated collection tools or first pass review tools (like FirstPass™, powered by Venio FPR™) can also help cull data for attorney review to reduce those costs, which is the most expensive component of eDiscovery.

So, what do you think? Do you track GB metrics for your eDiscovery cases? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

First Pass Review: Domain Categorization of Your Opponent’s Data

Yesterday, we talked about the use of First Pass Review (FPR) applications (such as FirstPass™, powered by Venio FPR™) to not only conduct first pass review of your own collection, but also to analyze your opponent’s ESI production. One way to analyze that data is through “fuzzy” searching to find misspellings or OCR errors in an opponent’s produced ESI.

Domain Categorization

Another type of analysis is the use of domain categorization. Email is generally the biggest component of most ESI collections and each participant in an email communication belongs to a domain associated with the email server that manages their email.

FirstPass supports domain categorization by providing a list of domains associated with the ESI collection being reviewed, with a count for each domain that appears in emails in the collection. Domain categorization provides several benefits when reviewing your opponent’s ESI:

  • Non-Responsive Produced ESI: Domains in the list that are obviously non-responsive to the case can be quickly identified and all messages associated with those domains can be “group-tagged” as non-responsive. If a significant percentage of files are identified as non-responsive, that may be a sign that your opponent is trying to “bury you with paper” (albeit electronic).
  • Inadvertent Disclosures: If there are any emails associated with outside counsel’s domain, they could be inadvertent disclosures of attorney work product or attorney-client privileged communications. If so, you can then address those according to the agreed-upon process for handling inadvertent disclosures and clawback of same.
  • Issue Identification: Messages associated with certain parties might be related to specific issues (e.g., an alleged design flaw of a specific subcontractor’s product), so domain categorization can isolate those messages more quickly.

In summary, there are several ways to use first pass review tools, like FirstPass, for reviewing your opponent’s ESI production, including: email analytics, synonym searching, fuzzy searching and domain categorization. First pass review isn’t just for your own production; it’s also an effective process to quickly evaluate your opponent’s production.

So, what do you think? Have you used first pass review tools to assess an opponent’s produced ESI? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

First Pass Review: Fuzzy Searching Your Opponent’s Data

Yesterday, we talked about the use of First Pass Review (FPR) applications (such as FirstPass™, powered by Venio FPR™) to not only conduct first pass review of your own collection, but also to analyze your opponent’s ESI production. One way to analyze that data is through synonym searching to find variations of your search terms to increase the possibility of finding the terminology used by your opponents.

Fuzzy Searching

Another type of analysis is the use of fuzzy searching. Attorneys know what terms they’re looking for, but those terms may not often be spelled correctly. Also, opposing counsel may produce a number of image only files that require Optical Character Recognition (OCR), which is usually not 100% accurate.

FirstPass supports “fuzzy” searching, which is a mechanism by finding alternate words that are close in spelling to the word you’re looking for (usually one or two characters off). FirstPass will display all of the words – in the collection – close to the word you’re looking for, so if you’re looking for the term “petroleum”, you can find variations such as “peroleum”, “petoleum” or even “petroleom” – misspellings or OCR errors that could be relevant. Then, simply select the variations you wish to include in the search. Fuzzy searching is the best way to broaden your search to include potential misspellings and OCR errors and FirstPass provides a terrific capability to select those variations to review additional potential “hits” in your collection.

Tomorrow, I’ll talk about the use of domain categorization to quickly identify potential inadvertent disclosures and weed out non-responsive files produced by your opponent, based on the domain of the communicators. Hasta la vista, baby!  🙂

In the meantime, what do you think? Have you used fuzzy searching to find misspellings or OCR errors in an opponent’s produced ESI? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

First Pass Review: Synonym Searching Your Opponent’s Data

Yesterday, we talked about the use of First Pass Review (FPR) applications (such as FirstPass™, powered by Venio FPR™) to not only conduct first pass review of your own collection, but also to analyze your opponent’s ESI production. One way to analyze that data is through email analytics to see the communication patterns graphically to identify key parties for deposition purposes and look for potential production omissions.

Synonym Searching

Another type of analysis is the use of synonym searching. Attorneys understand the key terminology their client uses, but they often don’t know the terminology their client’s opposition uses because they haven’t interviewed the opposition’s custodians. In a product defect case, the opposition may refer to admitted design or construction “mistakes” in their product or process as “flaws”, “errors”, “goofs” or even “flubs”. With FirstPass, you can enter your search term into the synonym searching section of the application and it will provide a list of synonyms (with hit counts of each, if selected). Then, you can simply select the synonyms you wish to include in the search. As a result, FirstPass identifies synonyms of your search terms to broaden the scope and catch key “hits” that could be the “smoking gun” in the case.

Tomorrow, I’ll talk about the use of fuzzy searching to find misspellings that may be commonly used by your opponent or errors resulting from Optical Character Recognition (OCR) of any image-only files that they produce. Stay tuned! 🙂

In the meantime, what do you think? Have you used synonym searching to identify variations on terms in an opponent’s produced ESI? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

First Pass Review: Of Your Opponent’s Data

In the past few years, applications that support Early Case Assessment (ECA) (or Early Data Assessment, as I prefer to call it) and First Pass Review (FPR) of ESI have become widely popular in eDiscovery as the analytical and culling benefits of conducting FPR have become obvious. The benefit of these FPR tools to analyze and cull their ESI before conducting attorney review and producing relevant files has become increasingly clear. But, nobody seems to talk about what these tools can do with opponent’s produced ESI.

Less Resources to Understand Data Produced to You

In eDiscovery, attorneys typically develop a reasonably in-depth understanding of their collection. They know who the custodians are, have a chance to interview those custodians and develop a good knowledge of standard operating procedures and terminology of their client to effectively retrieve responsive ESI. However, that same knowledge isn’t present when reviewing opponent’s data. Unless they are deposed, the opposition’s custodians aren’t interviewed and where the data originated is often unclear. The only source of information is the data itself, which requires in-depth analysis. An FPR application like FirstPass™, powered by Venio FPR™, can make a significant difference in conducting that analysis – provided that you request a native production from your opponent, which is vital to being able to perform an in-depth analysis.

Email Analytics

The ability to see the communication patterns graphically – to identify the parties involved, with whom they communicated and how frequently – is a significant benefit to understanding the data received. FirstPass provides email analytics to understand the parties involved and potentially identify other key opponent individuals to depose in the case. Dedupe capabilities enable quick comparison against your production to confirm if the opposition has possibly withheld key emails between opposing parties. FirstPass also provides an email timeline to enable you to determine whether any gaps exist in the opponent’s production.

Tomorrow, I’ll talk about the use of synonym searching to find variations of your search terms that may be common terminology of your opponent. Same bat time, same bat channel! 🙂

In the meantime, what do you think? Have you used email analytics to analyze an opponent’s produced ESI? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Searching 101: Don’t Get “Wild” with Wildcards


Several months ago, I provided search strategy assistance to a client that had already agreed upon several searches with opposing counsel. One search related to mining activities, so the attorney decided to use a wildcard of “min*” to retrieve variations like “mine”, “mines” and “mining”.

That one search retrieved over 300,000 files with hits.

Why? Because there are 269 words in the English language that begin with the letters “min”. Words like “mink”, “mind”, “mint” and “minion” were all being retrieved in this search for files related to “mining”. We ultimately had to go back to opposing counsel and negotiate a revised search that was more appropriate.

How do you ensure that you’re retrieving all variations of your search term?

Stem Searches

One way to capture the variations is with stem searching. Applications that support stem searching give you an ability to enter the root word (e.g., mine) and it will locate that word and its variations. Stem searching provides the ability to find all variations of a word without having to use wildcards.

Other Methods

If your application doesn’t support stem searches, Morewords.com shows list of words that begin with your search string (e.g., to get all 269 words beginning with “min”, go here – simply substitute any characters for “min” to see the words that start with those characters). Choose the variations you want and incorporate them into the search instead of the wildcard – i.e., use “(mine or “mines or mining)” instead of “min*” to retrieve a more relevant result set.

Some applications let you select the wildcard variations you wish to use. FirstPass™, powered by Venio FPR™, enables you to type in the wildcard string, display all the words – in your collection – that begin with that string, and select the variations on which to search. As a result, you can avoid all of the non-relevant variations and limit the search to the relevant hits.

So, what do you think? Have you ever been “burned” by wildcard searching? Do you have any other suggested methods for effectively handling them? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.