Close
Enter your
text here

Searching

Plaintiffs’ Supreme Effort to Recuse Judge Peck in Da Silva Moore Denied – eDiscovery Case Law

As we discussed back in July, attorneys representing lead plaintiff Monique Da Silva Moore and five other employees filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court arguing that New York Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck, who approved an eDiscovery protocol agreed to by the parties that included predictive coding technology, should have recused himself given his previous public statements expressing strong support of predictive coding.  Earlier this month, on October 7, that petition was denied by the Supreme Court.

Da Silva Moore and her co-plaintiffs had argued in the petition that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was too deferential to Peck when denying the plaintiff’s petition to recuse him, asking the Supreme Court to order the Second Circuit to use the less deferential “de novo” standard.

The plaintiffs have now been denied in their recusal efforts in four courts.  Here is the link to the Supreme Court docket item, referencing denial of the petition.

This battle over predictive coding and Judge Peck’s participation has continued for over 18 months.  For those who may have not been following the case or may be new to the blog, here’s a recap.

Last year, back in February, Judge Peck issued an opinion making this case likely the first case to accept the use of computer-assisted review of electronically stored information (“ESI”) for this case.  However, on March 13, District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the plaintiffs’ request to submit additional briefing on their February 22 objections to the ruling.  In that briefing (filed on March 26), the plaintiffs claimed that the protocol approved for predictive coding “risks failing to capture a staggering 65% of the relevant documents in this case” and questioned Judge Peck’s relationship with defense counsel and with the selected vendor for the case, Recommind.

Then, on April 5, 2012, Judge Peck issued an order in response to Plaintiffs’ letter requesting his recusal, directing plaintiffs to indicate whether they would file a formal motion for recusal or ask the Court to consider the letter as the motion.  On April 13, (Friday the 13th, that is), the plaintiffs did just that, by formally requesting the recusal of Judge Peck (the defendants issued a response in opposition on April 30).  But, on April 25, Judge Carter issued an opinion and order in the case, upholding Judge Peck’s opinion approving computer-assisted review.

Not done, the plaintiffs filed an objection on May 9 to Judge Peck’s rejection of their request to stay discovery pending the resolution of outstanding motions and objections (including the recusal motion, which has yet to be ruled on.  Then, on May 14, Judge Peck issued a stay, stopping defendant MSLGroup’s production of electronically stored information.  On June 15, in a 56 page opinion and order, Judge Peck denied the plaintiffs’ motion for recusal.  Judge Carter ruled on the plaintiff’s recusal request on November 7 of last year, denying the request and stating that “Judge Peck’s decision accepting computer-assisted review … was not influenced by bias, nor did it create any appearance of bias”.

The plaintiffs then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Second Circuit of the US Court of Appeals, which was denied this past April, leading to their petition for a writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court, which has now also been denied.

So, what do you think?  Will we finally move on to the merits of the case?  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.

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request for Native Production, Allows PDFs Instead – eDiscovery Case Law

In Westdale Recap Props. v. Np/I&G Wakefield Commons (E.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2013), North Carolina Magistrate Judge James E. Gates upheld the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendants to conduct supplemental searches and production, but denied the plaintiff’s motion with regard to requiring the defendant to produce ESI in native format, instead finding that “production in the form of searchable PDF’s is sufficient”.

In this real estate dispute, the plaintiffs asserted claims for fraud against the defendant.  While the two sides were able to agree on a discovery plan and a protective order, they were unable to agree on the form of production for electronically stored information (ESI), leading to the plaintiff’s motion.  The plaintiffs argued that “the metadata is critical where, as here, a fraud claim is at issue”.

The defendants produced 500 pages of documents after the parties agreed on the protective order, followed by a supplemental production of 120 pages and another 24,000 pages after the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel.

FRCP 34 states that the requesting party “may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced”, which the plaintiff did in 70 of 71 requests for production, requesting that “ESI production be in its native format, rather than searchable PDF’s, so that metadata will not be destroyed.”

However, Judge Gates was not convinced of the need for native production, stating “Plaintiffs’ contention that production of ESI in the form of searchable PDF files would destroy the associated metadata appears unfounded. While the PDF files would not necessarily contain the metadata, Centro represents that the metadata would remain intact and plaintiffs have not shown to the contrary.”

Continuing, Judge Gates stated “The court also finds that plaintiffs have not, at this point, demonstrated an adequate need to have all the ESI produced in native format…Instead, as Centro argues, production in the form of searchable PDF’s is sufficient. If after reviewing Centro’s production plaintiffs determine that they still seek production of particular ESI in native format, they may file an appropriate motion.”

Judge Gates did conclude, however, that the defendants were required to perform supplemental searches and production, ordering the defendants to produce all responsive documents based on additional search terms provided by the plaintiffs.

So, what do you think?  Should the plaintiffs have been able to receive the production in their requested native format?   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.

Use of Model Order Doesn’t Avoid Discovery Disputes – eDiscovery Trends

In MediaTek, Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2013), when the parties could not agree on search terms, California Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered one party to run test searches before lodging objections and required both parties to meet and confer before approaching the court with further discovery disputes.

The parties in this patent infringement matter “took steps to rein in” the exorbitant expenses of e-discovery in patent litigation by adopting the Federal Circuit’s Model E-Discovery Order. The parties proposed, and the district court approved, limitations on discovery. In addition to other limitations on interrogatories and depositions, they also agreed to limits on e-mail production. Specifically, they agreed that “production would be phased to occur after basic document production, that such production would be limited to seven custodians per producing party, and that each requesting party would ‘limit its email production requests to include no more than fifteen (15) search terms per producing party for all such requests, with no more than seven (7) search terms used to search the email of any one custodian.’”

However, as the court noted, the “parties’ laudable efforts at controlling discovery costs . . . imploded.” As discovery closed, the plaintiff filed 10 joint discovery letters seeking additional discovery from the defendant; simultaneously, the defendant filed a non-joint letter to “‘preserve its right to discover [] withheld documents.’”

MediaTek asked the court to order Freescale to produce the e-mail of seven custodians based on 15 search terms and “further identified the 7 search terms to be applied to each custodian’s email as required by the stipulated ESI Discovery Order.” Freescale objected and refused to run any searches.

The court addressed certain search terms, ruling as follows:

“The search terms which are variants of the word “United States,” including “domestic,” are considered one search term. The terms”*mcf* OR *mx* OR *mpc* OR *ppc* OR *pcf* OR *sc*” are not variants of the same word; instead, each term applies to a different accused product. Accordingly, each is a separate search term. The same is true for *845* OR *331* etc.; each refers to a different patent, not a variant of the same word. Thus, for example, MediaTek’s first proposed search term (Dkt. No. 133-1 at 3) is actually six search terms.”

The judge ruled the remaining objections to search terms and date ranges premature. Although Freescale claimed the terms were overly broad, it had “not run a test search on a single identified custodian for any of the proposed searches.” If it were to do so, it might learn “that the searches will not return a disproportionately burdensome number of hits.” If, on the other hand, they returned too many irrelevant documents, then the parties needed to work together to narrow the requests.

Therefore, the court ordered MediaTek to provide amended search requests and for Freescale to run test searches before asserting that any request was too broad. If Freescale did find the requests objectionable, the parties had to “meet and confer in person.” As the court noted, the “[t]he process is designed to be collaborative, something that has not occurred up to this point.”

So, what do you think?  Should courts require producing parties to test searches before declaring them overly broad?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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.

For Successful Discovery, Think Backwards – eDiscovery Best Practices

The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) has become the standard model for the workflow of the process for handling electronically stored information (ESI) in discovery.  But, to succeed in discovery, regardless whether you’re the producing party or the receiving party, it might be helpful to think about the EDRM model backwards.

Why think backwards?

You can’t have a successful outcome without envisioning the successful outcome that you want to achieve.  The end of the discovery process includes the production and presentation stages, so it’s important to determine what you want to get out of those stages.  Let’s look at them.

Presentation

As a receiving party, it’s important to think about what types of evidence you need to support your case when presenting at depositions and at trial – this is the type of information that needs to be included in your production requests at the beginning of the case.

Production

The format of the ESI produced is important to both sides in the case.  For the receiving party, it’s important to get as much useful information included in the production as possible.  This includes metadata and searchable text for the produced documents, typically with an index or load file to facilitate loading into a review application.  The most useful form of production is native format files with all metadata preserved as used in the normal course of business.

For the producing party, it’s important to save costs, so it’s important to agree to a production format that minimizes production costs.  Converting files to an image based format (such as TIFF) adds costs, so producing in native format can be cost effective for the producing party as well.  It’s also important to determine how to handle issues such as privilege logs and redaction of privileged or confidential information.

Addressing production format issues up front will maximize cost savings and enable each party to get what they want out of the production of ESI.

Processing-Review-Analysis

It also pays to determine early in the process about decisions that affect processing, review and analysis.  How should exception files be handled?  What do you do about files that are infected with malware?  These are examples of issues that need to be decided up front to determine how processing will be handled.

As for review, the review tool being used may impact production specs in terms of how files are viewed and production of load files that are compatible with the review tool, among other considerations.  As for analysis, surely you test search terms to determine their effectiveness before you agree on those terms with opposing counsel, right?

Preservation-Collection-Identification

Long before you have to conduct preservation and collection for a case, you need to establish procedures for implementing and monitoring litigation holds, as well as prepare a data map to identify where corporate information is stored for identification, preservation and collection purposes.

As you can see, at the beginning of a case (and even before), it’s important to think backwards within the EDRM model to ensure a successful discovery process.  Decisions made at the beginning of the case affect the success of those latter stages, so don’t forget to think backwards!

So, what do you think?  What do you do at the beginning of a case to ensure success at the end?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

P.S. — Notice anything different about the EDRM graphic?

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 Daily is Three Years Old!

We’ve always been free, now we are three!

It’s hard to believe that it has been three years ago today since we launched the eDiscoveryDaily blog.  We’re past the “terrible twos” and heading towards pre-school.  Before you know it, we’ll be ready to take our driver’s test!

We have seen traffic on our site (from our first three months of existence to our most recent three months) grow an amazing 575%!  Our subscriber base has grown over 50% in the last year alone!  Back in June, we hit over 200,000 visits on the site and now we have over 236,000!

We continue to appreciate the interest you’ve shown in the topics and will do our best to continue to provide interesting and useful posts about eDiscovery trends, best practices and case law.  That’s what this blog is all about.  And, in each post, we like to ask for you to “please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic”, so we encourage you to do so to make this blog even more useful.

We also want to thank the blogs and publications that have linked to our posts and raised our public awareness, including Pinhawk, Ride the Lightning, Litigation Support Guru, Complex Discovery, Bryan College, The Electronic Discovery Reading Room, Litigation Support Today, Alltop, ABA Journal, Litigation Support Blog.com, Litigation Support Technology & News, InfoGovernance Engagement Area, EDD Blog Online, eDiscovery Journal, Learn About E-Discovery, e-Discovery Team ® and any other publication that has picked up at least one of our posts for reference (sorry if I missed any!).  We really appreciate it!

As many of you know by now, we like to take a look back every six months at some of the important stories and topics during that time.  So, here are some posts over the last six months you may have missed.  Enjoy!

Rodney Dangerfield might put it this way – “I Tell Ya, Information Governance Gets No Respect”

Is it Time to Ditch the Per Hour Model for Document Review?  Here’s some food for thought.

Is it Possible for a File to be Modified Before it is Created?  Maybe, but here are some mechanisms for avoiding that scenario (here, here, here, here, here and here).  Best of all, they’re free.

Did you know changes to the Federal eDiscovery Rules are coming?  Here’s some more information.

Count Minnesota and Kansas among the states that are also making changes to support eDiscovery.

By the way, since the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) annual meeting back in May, several EDRM projects (Metrics, Jobs, Data Set and the new Native Files project) have already announced new deliverables and/or requested feedback.

When it comes to electronically stored information (ESI), ensuring proper chain of custody tracking is an important part of handling that ESI through the eDiscovery process.

Do you self-collect?  Don’t Forget to Check for Image Only Files!

The Files are Already Electronic, How Hard Can They Be to Load?  A sound process makes it easier.

When you remove a virus from your collection, does it violate your discovery agreement?

Do you think that you’ve read everything there is to read on Technology Assisted Review?  If you missed anything, it’s probably here.

Consider using a “SWOT” analysis or Decision Tree for better eDiscovery planning.

If you’re an eDiscovery professional, here is what you need to know about litigation.

BTW, eDiscovery Daily has had 242 posts related to eDiscovery Case Law since the blog began!  Forty-four of them have been in the last six months.

Our battle cry for next September?  “Four more years!”  🙂

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.

If Production is Small, Does that Mean ESI is Being Withheld? – eDiscovery Case Law

In American Home Assurance Co. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., No. 8:11CV270 (D. Neb. Sept. 11, 2013), Nebraska District Judge Lyle E. Strom ruled (among other things) that the defendants must disclose the sources it has searched (or intends to search) for electronically stored information (ESI) to the plaintiffs and, for each source, identify the search terms used.

The case arose from the sale of some raw beef trim by defendant (GOPAC) to the plaintiffs (Cargill), which the plaintiffs claimed was contaminated with the bacterium known as “E. coli 0157:H7.”  The defendants filed a counterclaim related to a New York Times article that allegedly contained false information supplied by the plaintiffs that caused the defendants to lose existing and potential customers.

Among the issues addressed in this ruling was a motion to compel from the plaintiffs for “the production of e-mails and other electronically stored information that have allegedly been withheld”.  Regarding the motion, Judge Strom noted that the plaintiff “has failed to identify a specific e-mail or electronic record that GOPAC is refusing to produce. Rather, Cargill argues that the small number of e-mails produced (25) evidences a lack of diligence in production.”  With regard to the size of the production, Judge Strom stated that “the Court cannot compel the production of information that does not exist.”

The defendant provided assurances that it had turned over all ESI that its searches produced and continues to supplement as it finds additional information, offering to search available sources using search terms provided by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff “has refused to supply any additional terms”.

So, Judge Strom gave the defendant a chance to show the extent of its discovery efforts, as follows:

“It is unclear to the Court why ESI that has presumably been in GOPAC’s possession since the start of discovery has not been fully produced. To provide Cargill an adequate opportunity to contest discovery of ESI, the Court will order GOPAC to disclose the sources it has searched or intends to search and, for each source, the search terms used. The Court will also order all ESI based on the current search terms be produced by November 1, 2013. However, given Cargill’s failure to point to any specific information that has been withheld or additional sources that have not been searched, no further action by the Court is appropriate at this time.”

Judge Strom gave the defendant until September 30 to disclose its sources and search terms.  Perhaps more to come…

So, what do you think?  Should the judge have done more or was this an appropriate first step?   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.

Judge Says “Dude, Where’s Your CAR?” – eDiscovery Case Law

Ralph Losey describes a unique case this week in his e-Discovery Team ® blog (Poor Plaintiff’s Counsel, Can’t Even Find a CAR, Much Less Drive One).  In Northstar Marine, Inc. v. Huffman, Case 1:13-cv-00037-WS-C (Ala. S.D., 08/27/13), the defendant’s motion to enforce the parties’ document production agreement was granted after Alabama Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady rejected the plaintiff’s excuse that “it is having difficulty locating an inexpensive provider of electronic search technology to assist with discovery”.

On June 10 of this year, the parties entered into an agreement for handling electronically stored information (“ESI”) that noted:

“Both parties have or will immediately arrange to use computer-assisted search technology that permits efficient gathering of documents, de-duplication, maintaining the relationship between emails and attachments, full text Boolean searches of all documents in one pass, segregation or tagging of the search results, and export of all responsive files without cost to the other party. Both parties shall share with the other party the specific capabilities of their proposed computer-assisted search technology, and will endeavor to agree on the technology to be deployed by the other party.”

Sounds like a forward thinking plan, right?

As the order also noted, “In addition, the parties agreed to use certain search terms and agreed that ‘[a]ll documents in the search result sets shall be produced immediately to the other side in native format including all metadata.’”  On June 11, the court entered a Supplemental Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order adopting the parties’ plan with regard to ESI.

The defendants were ready quickly, informing the plaintiff on July 3 that they had “collected their ESI and were ready to produce the collected documents” and “inquired as to the method that plaintiff was using to collect its documents for production”.  The defendants sent subsequent inquiries on July 8 and July 24.  On August 6, plaintiff’s counsel notified defendants’ counsel that the plaintiff’s IT provider could not perform the tasks necessary to collect the ESI and that the plaintiff was “trying to locate outside providers of electronic search technology to assist with plaintiff’s ESI production”.  The next day, the defendants filed their motion to compel.

On August 21, the plaintiff filed a response to the defendants’ motion, not objecting to the defendants’ discovery requests, but rather stating that it was “having difficulty locating an inexpensive provider of electronic search technology to assist with discovery” and did not provide a date to complete its production obligation.

Noting that a Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order “is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril”, Judge Cassady called the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s scheduling order and supplemental orders “unacceptable”.  He also stated that “Plaintiff’s attempts to find an inexpensive provider certainly do not constitute due diligence” and granted the defendants’ motion to compel.

Ralph notes in his observations the perils of agreeing to search terms that have not been tested in advance.  I experienced that very issue with a client that had already agreed to search terms before I was brought in to assist – as a result, one term alone retrieved over 300,000 files with hits because they got “wild” with wildcards.  Always test your search terms before agreeing to them!

So, what do you think?  Do you test your search terms before agreement with opposing counsel?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Photo by Tracy Bennett– ©2000 – 20th Century Fox – All Rights Reserved

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.

Everything You Wanted to Know about Technology Assisted Review – eDiscovery Trends

Whether you were “afraid to ask” or not…

Rob Robinson has put together another terrific compilation, this time a compilation of articles about Technology Assisted Review and Predictive Coding over the past 1 1/2 years (from February 2012, last updated on August 12).  If you simply can’t get enough of the topic, you’ll want to check it out.

His compilation can be found at his Complex Discovery web site here (the title of the page is Technology-Assisted Review: From Expert Explanations to Mainstream Mentions).  According to my count, there are 632(!) articles regarding the topic.  Happy reading!

Of course, eDiscovery Daily made its fair share of contributions to the list.  Here are our posts regarding the topic on the site, in case you missed them and want to catch up:

Here are a few others that aren’t listed – just sayin’ Rob!  😉:

Thanks to Rob, once again, for providing a very useful compilation on a very important eDiscovery topic.  And, Rob, if you want to add links for the additional posts above, we won’t complain.  🙂

So, what do you think?  Do you keep up with articles about technology assisted review?  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.

Can You Figure Out How I Wrote this Blog Post? – eDiscovery Trends

I have to be honest, this blog post contains quite a bit of content from one of the early posts from this blog.  However, there is something different about this version of the content – it looks a bit unusual.  Can you figure out how I wrote it?  See if you can figure it out before you get to the bottom.  I promise I haven’t lost my mind.

Types of exceptions file

It’s important to note that efforts to quote fix quote these files will often change the files parentheses and the meta data associated with them parentheses, so it’s important to establish with opposing counsel what measures to address the exceptions are acceptable. Some files may not be recoverable and you need to agree up front how far to go to attempt to recover them.

  • Corrupted files colon files can become corrupted 4 a variety of reasons, from application failures 2 system crashes to computer viruses. I recently had a case where 40 percent of the collection what’s contained in to corrupt Outlook PST file dash fortunately, we were able to repair those files and recover the messages. If you have read Lee accessible backups of the files, try to restore them from backup. If not, you will need to try using a repair utility. Outlook comes with a utility called scan PST. Exe that scans and repairs PST and OST file, and there are utilities parenthesis including freeware utilities parenthesis available via the web foremost file types. If all else fails, you can hire a-data recovery expert, but that can get very expensive.
  • Password protected files colon most collections usually contain at least some password protected files. Files can require a password to enable them to be edited, or even just to view them. As the most popular publication format, PDF files are often password protected from editing, but they can still be feud 2 support review parenthesis though some search engines May fail to index them parenthesis. If a file is password protected, you can try to obtain the password from the custodian providing the file dash if the custodian is unavailable or unable to remember the password, you can try a password cracking application, which will run through a series of character combinations to attempt to find the password. Be patient, it takes time, and doesn’t always succeed.
  • Unsupported file types corn in most collections, there are some unusual file types that art supported by the review application, such as file for legacy or specialized applications parenthesis E. G. AutoCAD for engineering drawing parenthesis. You may not even initially no what type of files they are semi colon if not, you can find out based on file extension by looking the file extension up in file ext. If your review application can’t read the file, it also can’t index the files for searching or display them 4 review. If those file maybe responses 2 discovery requests, review them with the natives application to determine they’re relevancy.
  • No dash text file colon files with no searchable text aren’t really exceptions dash they have to be accounted for, but they won’t be retrieved in searches, so it’s important to make sure they don’t quote slip through the cracks unquote. It’s common to perform optical character recognition parenthesis Boosie are parenthesis on Tiff files and image only PDF files, because they are common document 4 minutes. Other types of no text files, such as pictures in JTAG or PNG format, are usually not oser, unless there is an expectation that they will have significant text.

Did you figure it out?  I “dictated” the above content using speech-to-text on my phone, a Samsung Galaxy 3.  I duplicated the formatting from the earlier post, but left the text the way that the phone “heard” it.  Some of the choices it made were interesting: it understands “period” and “comma” as punctuation, but not “colon”, “quote” or “parenthesis”.  Words like “viewed” became “feud”, “readily” became “read Lee” and “OCR” became “Boosie are”.  It also often either dropped or added an “s” to words that I spoke.

These days, more ESI is discoverable from sources that are non-formalized, including texts and “tweets”.  Acronyms and abbreviations (and frequent misspelling of words) is common in these data sources (whether typed or through bad dictation), which makes searching them for responsive information very challenging.  You need to get creative when searching these sources and use mechanisms such as conceptual clustering to group similar documents together, as well as stemming and fuzzy searching to find variations and misspellings of words.

Want to see the original version of the post?  Here it is.

So, what do you think?  How do you handle informal communications, like texts and “tweets”, in your searching of ESI?   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.

Data May Be Doubling Every Couple of Years, But How Much of it is Original? – eDiscovery Best Practices

According to the Compliance, Governance and Oversight Council (CGOC), information volume in most organizations doubles every 18-24 months. However, just because it doubles doesn’t mean that it’s all original. Like a bad cover band singing Free Bird, the rendition may be unique, but the content is the same. The key is limiting review to unique content.

When reviewers are reviewing the same files again and again, it not only drives up costs unnecessarily, but it could also lead to problems if the same file is categorized differently by different reviewers (for example, inadvertent production of a duplicate of a privileged file if it is not correctly categorized).

Of course, we all know the importance of identifying exact duplicates (that contain the exact same content in the same file format) which can be identified through MD5 and SHA-1 hash values, so that they can be removed from the review population and save considerable review costs.

Identifying near duplicates that contain the same (or almost the same) information (such as a Word document published to an Adobe PDF file where the content is the same, but the file format is different, so the hash value will be different) also reduces redundant review and saves costs.

Then, there is message thread analysis. Many email messages are part of a larger discussion, sometimes just between two parties, and, other times, between a number of parties in the discussion. To review each email in the discussion thread would result in much of the same information being reviewed over and over again. Pulling those messages together and enabling them to be reviewed as an entire discussion can eliminate that redundant review. That includes any side conversations within the discussion that may or may not be related to the original topic (e.g., a side discussion about the latest misstep by Anthony Weiner).

Clustering is a process which pulls similar documents together based on content so that the duplicative information can be identified more quickly and eliminated to reduce redundancy. With clustering, you can minimize review of duplicative information within documents and emails, saving time and cost and ensuring consistency in the review. As a result, even if the data in your organization doubles every couple of years, the cost of your review shouldn’t.

So, what do you think? Does your review tool support clustering technology to pull similar content together for review? 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.