Yesterday, we discussed a new self-assessment test that enables organizations to measure their eDiscovery “maturity”. Today, we look at a new survey of corporate counsel from BDO Consulting that shows that they feel there is substantial room for improvement when evaluating their organizations’ effectiveness in managing eDiscovery.
read moreA new self-assessment resource from EDRM helps you answer that question. A few days ago, EDRM announced the release of the EDRM eDiscovery Maturity Self-Assessment Test (eMSAT-1), the “first self-assessment resource to help organizations measure their eDiscovery maturity”. Find out more about it here.
read moreIn Dynamo Holdings v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Texas Tax Court Judge Ronald Buch ruled that the petitioners “may use predictive coding in responding to respondent’s discovery request” and if “after reviewing the results, respondent believes that the response to the discovery request is incomplete, he may file a motion to compel at that time”.
read moreAs we discussed Wednesday, working with electronic files in a review tool is NOT just simply a matter of loading the files and getting started. Electronic files are diverse and can represent a whole collection of issues to address in order to process them for loading. To address those issues effectively, processing requires a sound process.
read moreSo far in this blog series, we’ve taken a look at the ‘litigation support culture’ circa 1980, and we’ve covered how databases were built and used. We’ve come a long way since then, and in last week’s blog, we started discussing how things have evolved, beginning with a discussion of the use of microfilm and microfiche to store document collections. As most of you know, the next step in the evolution process was a move to storing documents as images.
read moreSince hard copy discovery became electronic discovery, I’ve worked with a number of clients who expect that working with electronic files in a review tool is simply a matter of loading the files and getting started. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple!
read moreYesterday, we talked about addressing parameters of production up front to ensure that those requirements make sense and avoid foreseeable production problems well before the production step. Today, we will talk about quality control (QC) mechanisms to make sure that the production is complete and accurate. There are a number of checks that can and should be performed on the production set, prior to producing it to the requesting party. Here are some examples.
read moreMost of the “press” associated with eDiscovery ranges from the “left side of the EDRM model” (i.e., Information Management, Identification, Preservation, Collection) through the stages to prepare materials for production (i.e., Processing, Review and Analysis). All of those phases lead to one inevitable stage in eDiscovery: Production. Yet, few people talk about the actual production step. If Preservation, Collection and Review are the “John”, “Paul” and “George” of the eDiscovery process, Production is “Ringo”.
read moreRecently, I assisted a large corporate client where there were several searches conducted across the company’s enterprise-wide document management systems (DMS) for ESI potentially responsive to the litigation. Some of the individual searches on these systems retrieved over 200,000 files by themselves! Here is how we made those searches more precise.
read moreSo far in this blog series, we’ve taken a look at the ‘litigation support culture’ circa 1980, and we’ve covered how databases were built and used. We’ve come a long way since then, and in the next posts I’m going to talk a bit about how things evolved. One of the first big changes in how we worked was the use of microfilm.
read more|
On-Premise Processing and Review offer unique advantages that the cloud alone can’t replicate. Make an informed decision. |
