So where does this leave us? The idea behind TAR – that technology can help improve the eDiscovery process – is a valuable goal. But figuring out what pieces of technology to apply at what point in the workflow is not so easy, especially when the experts disagree as to the best methodology.
read moreThe Supreme Court heard arguments on February 27th over Microsoft’s ongoing data privacy case involving email stored in Microsoft datacenter in Ireland. Supposedly, according to reports from those attending, the justices didn’t seem swayed by Microsoft’s claims that data stored overseas should not be accessible to government prosecutors. However, Congress has since passed the CLOUD (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data) Act. Parties on all sides of the case expected the passage of the CLOUD Act to render the Microsoft case moot. And, they were right.
read moreBefore you think about using more advanced technology, here are some other tools to consider using first, some operational cautions to keep in mind and when you may not want to use TAR.
read moreThe use of Technology Assisted Review (TAR) has been accepted in the courts for several years, but most lawyers still don’t use it and many still don’t know what it is or how it works. Why not? We will discuss this and other questions in a webcast next week.
read moreAt the Houston ACEDS luncheon/TAR panel last week, we asked a few questions of the audience to gauge their understanding and experience with Technology Assisted Review (TAR). Some of the questions (like “have you used TAR on a case?”) were obvious questions to ask. Others might have not been so obvious.
read moreA snapshot demonstration of the process and syntax required to perform boolean searches within CloudNine to combine and connect multiple criteria properly using AND, OR or AND NOT operators.
read moreTAR began as a process and in the early stage of the discussion, it was common to refer to various TAR tools under the heading “analytics”. But before long, the definition began to erode and TAR started to become synonymous with Predictive Coding.
read moreToday’s thought leader is Chris Dale. Chris is Editor of the eDisclosure Information Project. Chris qualified as an English solicitor in 1980. He was a litigation partner in London and then a litigation software developer and litigation support consultant before turning to commentary on electronic disclosure / discovery. He runs the e-Disclosure Information Project which disseminates information about the court rules, the problems, and the technology to lawyers and their clients, to judges, and to suppliers. He was a member of Senior Master Whitaker’s Working Party which drafted Practice Direction 31B and the Electronic Documents Questionnaire. Chris is also a well-known speaker and commentator in the UK, the US and other common law jurisdictions.
read moreOver the past year I have asked this question several different ways in blogs and webinars about technology assisted review (TAR). Why is TAR like ice cream? Think Baskin Robbins? Why is TAR like golf? Think an almost incomprehensible set of rules and explanations. Why is TAR like baseball, basketball or football? Think never ending arguments about the best team ever. And now my latest analogy. Why is TAR like a bag of M&M’s?
read moreToday’s thought leader is Brad Jenkins. Brad is CEO of CloudNine™. Brad has over 20 years of experience as an entrepreneur, as well as 18 years leading customer focused companies in the litigation technology arena. Brad consults clients on implementing best practices in litigation document management and the impact of technology on managing discovery. Brad is very involved in eDiscovery educational efforts and currently serves as the President of the Houston ACEDS Chapter. He’s also my boss! :o)
read more