Close
Enter your
text here

Industry Trends

Less Than Half the States Have a Technology Competence Requirement for Attorneys: eDiscovery Trends

As you all know, I love a good infographic.  This one reflects the states that require attorneys to stay abreast of changes in technology relating to law practice.  Does your state have a technology competence requirement for its attorneys?

This infographic is available courtesy of Percipient, which is an eDiscovery and legal technology company that provides managed document review and managed eDiscovery services.  As they note in their post about the topic, in 2012 the American Bar Association amended Comment 8 to Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Duty of Competence) to address changes in technology. That Comment now reads as follows:

“To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.”

According to Percipient, twenty-four states have either adopted the amended comment or otherwise require attorneys to stay abreast of changes in technology relating to law practice, with twenty-two of them effective today.  The other two states (represented in light blue on the map) – Washington State (September 1, 2016) and Wisconsin (January 1, 2017) – will be effective within the next few months.  So, by their assessment, less than half of all states have a technology competence requirement for its attorneys.

I have no reason to believe that they missed any states that have such a requirement, but they note to inform them if they missed any.  Regardless, the infographic (available here as a standalone PDF) is a great resource for identifying the current status of technology competence requirements across the country.  Thanks, Percipient!

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

 

Here are the Results of the Inaugural Best of Corporate Counsel Survey: eDiscovery Trends

Hard to believe that this is their inaugural survey of the top providers to the in-house corporate legal marketplace, but Corporate Counsel just released its first Best of Corporate Counsel results and those results include rankings in a few eDiscovery categories.

As they note in their introductory letter, Best of Corporate Counsel highlights the businesses and individuals who garnered the most votes from members of the in-house legal community from law-firm performance, data management, legal research to technology, finance, outsource services and more.  The Corporate Counsel community was notified of the ballot through direct emails, print advertising, social media updates and online advertisements across American Lawyer Media (ALM)’s network of websites.  The ballot consisted of 55 categories and over 1,500 votes were cast in this initial survey.

The survey results start here and span eight pages with advertisements interspersed throughout (winners like to gloat, after all).  Here are the results of some of the notable eDiscovery categories:

Best of Online Review Platform

  1. Relativity by kCura
  2. CloudNine Discovery
  3. Kroll Ontrack

Shameless plug warning: Did you think I was going to start anywhere else?  :o)  Seriously though, CloudNine is pleased and proud to have been voted #2 behind Relativity (who is a bit more well-known than we are) and we want to thank those who voted for us.  We’re the Avis of the eDiscovery online review platforms – we try harder.  Think they’ll let us borrow that slogan?  Anyway, here are some other category results…

Best of Legal Hold Solution

  1. Thomson Reuters Concourse Legal Hold
  2. Mitratech Legal Hold
  3. Legal Hold Pro by Zapproved

Best of Managed Document Review Service

  1. Inspired Review
  2. RVM
  3. FTI Technology

Best of Managed eDiscovery & Litigation Support Services

  1. Inspired Review
  2. RVM
  3. Discovia

Best of End-To-End eDiscovery Provider

  1. RVM
  2. Discovia
  3. Epiq Systems

Best of Technology Assisted Review eDiscovery Solution

  1. Inspired Review
  2. RVM
  3. Discovia

Best of Data & Technology Management eDiscovery Provider

  1. Epiq Systems
  2. Consilio / Huron Legal
  3. RVM

Best of Data Recovery Solution Provider

  1. Discovia
  2. Kroll Ontrack
  3. Consilio / Huron Legal

So, what do you think?  Do you agree with the selections or do you have a different favorite provider in any of these categories?  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. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily 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 Rules that Judges Can Consider Predictive Algorithms in Sentencing: eDiscovery Trends

Score one for big data analytics.  According to The Wall Street Journal Law Blog, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled last week that sentencing judges may take into account algorithms that score offenders based on their risk of committing future crimes.

As noted in Court: Judges Can Consider Predictive Algorithms in Sentencing (written by Joe Palazzolo), the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, upheld a six-year prison sentence for 34-year-old Eric Loomis, who was deemed a high risk of re-offending by a popular tool known as COMPAS (Correctional Offender  Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions), a 137-question test that covers criminal and parole history, age, employment status, social life, education level, community ties, drug use and beliefs.

“Ultimately, we conclude that if used properly, observing the limitations and cautions set forth herein, a circuit court’s consideration of a COMPAS risk assessment at sentencing does not violate a defendant’s right to due process,” wrote Justice Ann Walsh Bradley of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

During his appeal in April after pleading guilty to eluding an officer and no contest to operating a vehicle without the owner’s consent, Loomis challenged the use of the test’s score, saying it violated his right to due process of law because he was unable to review the algorithm and raise questions about it.  Loomis, a registered sex offender, had been then sentenced to six years in prison because his score on the COMPAS test noted he was a “high risk” to the community.

As part of the ruling, Justice Bradley ordered state officials to inform the sentencing court about several cautions regarding a COMPAS risk assessment’s accuracy: (1) the proprietary nature of COMPAS has been invoked to prevent disclosure of information relating to how factors are weighed or how risk scores are to be determined; (2) risk assessment compares defendants to a national sample, but no crossvalidation study for a Wisconsin population has yet been completed; (3) some studies of COMPAS risk assessment scores have raised questions about whether they disproportionately classify minority offenders as having a higher risk of recidivism; and (4) risk assessment tools must be constantly monitored and re-normed for accuracy due to changing populations and subpopulations.

And, the court also had guidance for how the scores should be used, as well:

“Although it cannot be determinative, a sentencing court may use a COMPAS risk assessment as a relevant factor for such matters as: (1) diverting low-risk prison-bound offenders to a non-prison alternative; (2) assessing whether an offender can be supervised safely and effectively in the community; and (3) imposing terms and conditions of probation, supervision, and responses to violations.”

So, while the sentencing judge may take COMPAS scores into consideration, they can’t use it to justify making a sentence longer or shorter, or serve as the sole factor in determining whether someone should be sentenced to prison or released into the community.  As Judge Bradley wrote in her opinion, “Using a risk assessment tool to determine the length and severity of a sentence is a poor fit”.

So, what do you think?  Should algorithms that have a significant effect on people’s lives be secret?  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. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

New Roles for George Socha and Randi Mayes and First Masters Conference Report: eDiscovery Trends

Changes are in store for a couple of legal technology icons.  And, here are some of the things you missed at this week’s Masters Conference.

George Socha Has a New Role

ACEDS reported yesterday that George Socha, co-founder of EDRM, announced yesterday at the Summer Social for Women in eDiscovery in Minneapolis that he has joined BDO as Managing Director for Thought Leadership. ACEDS reports that George says he will be continuing his work with EDRM and will continue to be a presence at industry conferences, on webinars, and publishing new eDiscovery materials.  Having participated in EDRM since 2006 (and as an Education partner via eDiscovery Daily), I can’t imagine EDRM without George, so that’s good to hear.

ACEDS reported that George says he still has to figure out all of his new responsibilities within the company but will be actively involved in business development as well as working on specific matters, including providing expert testimony. “One of the things that impressed me about BDO was their concern with making sure I understood and appreciated the importance they place on collaborative work and teamwork,” George said.

Randi Mayes Stepping Down as Executive Director of ILTA

ACEDS also reported ILTA’s announcement that Randi Mayes, known as the “Mother of ILTA” and the organization’s long-serving executive director, will step down from her position in 2017. Randi has been with the organization since its inception, first as a volunteer leader and eventually as its executive director.  I remember coordinating with her as a vendor way back in 1999-2000, when ILTA was known as LawNet and the conference every year was located in Palm Springs at the LaQuinta resort.  The organization and the conference have both come a long way and she has been a big part of that.

The organization’s Board of Directors says it has formed a search committee to oversee the process of selecting a new executive director.

Notes from the Masters Conference, courtesy of Bill Dimm

We had a terrific day at The Masters Conference New York City 2016 IoT, Cybersecurity and Social Media Conference on Monday and I want to thank the panelists for the session that I moderated (Faster, Cheaper, Better: How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery).  Bill Dimm, CEO of Hot Neuron, Bill Speros, Evidence Consulting Attorney with Speros & Associates, LLC and Hon. Ronald J. Hedges, Senior Counsel with Dentons all provided great insight into considerations and potential limitations of technology assisted review from a technician, consultant and judicial perspective.  They did a great job of spotlighting several instances where the hype of TAR may not meet the current state of TAR technology and acceptance.

When we were not presenting, we were able to attend other sessions throughout the day.  Most of the time, there were two sessions going at the same time, so you could only attend one of them.  I have some observations that I plan to share from one or two of the sessions next week.  Bill Dimm, on his Clustify blog, has already provided some observations here from the sessions that he attended that are worth checking out as well.

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

Once Again, It’s Time to Recognize Your Favorite Law Blog!: eDiscovery Trends

ABA Journal is working on their 10th annual list of the 100 best legal blogs, and, once again, they would like your advice on which blogs you think they should include.  If you have a favorite law blog (or “blawg”, get it?), now is the time to nominate it for recognition in the ABA Journal Annual Blawg 100!

On their Blawg 100 Amici page, you can complete the form to identify yourself, your employer or law school, your city and email address, the URL of the blog you wish to nominate, a link to a recent post from the blog and a brief (up to 500 characters) description as to why you’re a fan of the “blawg”.  You’re also asked whether you know the “blawgger” personally (and admonished to “be honest”) and whether ABA Journal can use your name and comment in their coverage.  You can nominate more than one “blawg”.

As always, ABA Journal notes that they discourage submissions (which they call “amici”) from:

  • Bloggers who nominate their own blogs or nominate blogs to which they have previously contributed posts.
  • Employees of law firms who nominate blogs written by their co-workers.
  • Public relations professionals in the employ of lawyers or law firms who nominate their clients’ blogs.
  • Pairs of bloggers who have clearly entered into a quid pro quo agreement to nominate each other.

Friend-of-the-blawg briefs (i.e., to fill and submit the form) are due by no later than 11:59 p.m. CT on Sunday, Aug. 7, 2015 to include your nomination.

One twist this year is that law blogs in the Blawg 100 Hall of Fame are not eligible for this year’s list.  Wow, there’s a “Blawg Hall of Fame”.  Some of us are just trying to make the All-Star Game, just sayin’… :o)

Anyway, if you have enjoyed reading eDiscovery Daily over the past several years and found our blog to be informative, we would love to be recognized!  Feel free to click on the link here to nominate us!  We appreciate the consideration!

There are other excellent legal technology blogs out there.  Here are a few of our favorites.  Feel free to nominate them too.  :o)

Our hats are off to all of those who provide eDiscovery news and analysis to the industry!  Again, if you would like to nominate any of the blogs (including, of course, eDiscoveryDaily), click here.  Deadline is August 7.

So, what do you think?  Do you have a favorite eDiscovery blog or source of information?  Share it with our readers!  And, 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. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Today’s the Day to “Master” Your Knowledge of eDiscovery in New York City!: eDiscovery Trends

Today’s the day!  If you’re in the New York City area today, join me and other legal technology experts and professionals at The Masters Conference New York City 2016 IoT, Cybersecurity and Social Media Conference for a full day of educational sessions covering a wide range of topics!  It’s not too late to register and attend!

The Masters Conference brings together leading experts and professionals from law firms, corporations and the bench to develop strategies, practices and resources for managing the information life cycle.  This year’s NYC event covers a wide range of topics from the impact of social media and the Internet of Things (IoT) on eDiscovery risks and costs to the revolution in eDiscovery analytics to how to handle cross-border data in the wake of the Schrems decision and the new privacy shield.

The event will be held at the historic New Yorker Hotel, 481 8th Ave., New York, NY 10001.  Registration begins at 8am, with sessions starting right after that, at 8:30am.

CloudNine will again be sponsoring the session Faster, Cheaper, Better: How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery at 8:30am.  I am excited to again be moderating, this time with Bill Dimm, CEO of Hot Neuron, Bill Speros, Evidence Consulting Attorney with Speros & Associates, LLC and Hon. Ronald J. Hedges, Senior Counsel with Dentons, as panelists.

Our panel discussion will provide an overview of the eDiscovery automation technologies we will really take a hard look at the technology and definition of TAR and the limitations associated with both.  It should be a very informative discussion with a very knowledgeable panel!  Hope you can join us!

Click here to register for the conference.  The cost is only $165 for a full day of sessions.  That’s hard to beat!

The Masters Conference also has an event coming up in Washington DC in October – its 10 year anniversary event!  Click here for more information on that.

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

Accessing Your Former Company’s Data with a Shared Password Could Make You a Hacker: Cybersecurity Trends

Can you spot what’s different about today’s post?  See below…  :o)

According to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, if you leave your company and then use a former co-worker’s credentials to access your former company’s computer systems, you could be a hacker.

In The Wall Street Journal Law Blog (Appeals Court: Using Shared Password to Steal Company Secrets is Hacking, written by Jacob Gershman), the appellate court affirmed the computer-hacking conviction of a former executive (David Nosal) at a recruiting firm accused of using a shared password to steal headhunting leads from the company’s internal network after he left his job to launch a rival business, ruling that he violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

Reuters reported that Nosal and two friends, who had also left Korn/Ferry, used an employee’s password in 2005 to access the recruiting firm’s computers and obtain information to help start a new firm.

In a 2-1 decision written by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, the majority held that Mr. Nosal acted “without authorization” in violation of the CFAA when he used login credentials shared by his assistant to gain access to the company’s network after his own credentials had been revoked.  The dissenting judge, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, expressed his concerns over the ruling, stating:

“People frequently share their passwords, notwithstanding the fact that websites and employers have policies prohibiting it. In my view, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act does not make the millions of people who engage in this ubiquitous, useful, and generally harmless conduct into unwitting federal criminals…”

However, Judge McKeown, in her opinion, indicated that the circumstances at issue couldn’t be applied to innocuous scenarios, like “asking a spouse to log in to an email account to print a boarding pass.”  Judge McKeown also noted that, without enforcement, “an employee could willy nilly give out passwords to anyone outside the company – former employees whose access had been revoked, competitors, industrious hackers, or bank robbers who find it less risky and more convenient to access accounts via the Internet rather than through armed robbery.”

The appellate court did rule that the more than $800,000 in restitution (about $600,000 of that in attorney’s fees) that Nosal was ordered to pay his old employer was unreasonable and asked a lower court to recalculate it.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever used a shared password to access a system to which you previously had credentials?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

What’s different about this post?  It doesn’t have the word “eDiscovery” in the title… :o)

New Time!  Just a reminder that I will be moderating a panel at The Masters Conference New York City 2016 IoT, Cybersecurity and Social Media Conference this coming Monday, July 11 (we covered it here) as part of a full day of educational sessions covering a wide range of topics.  CloudNine will be sponsoring that session, titled Faster, Cheaper, Better: How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery at 8:30am, not 4:15pm.  The early bird catches the knowledge.  :o)  Click here to register for the conference.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

According to Gartner, Cloud eDiscovery Solutions Gaining Momentum: eDiscovery Trends

According to a new guide by Gartner designed to help General Counsel and IT leaders at organizations evaluate and select eDiscovery solutions for investigative and legal matters, cloud-based eDiscovery solutions are gaining momentum in the market.

Written by Gartner’s industry analyst Jie Zhang, Market Guide for E-Discovery Solutions (available for purchase here) identifies several key findings, including the observation that Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solutions are gaining momentum, interest in Microsoft’s eDiscovery capabilities continues to build and (not surprisingly) the eDiscovery service market continues to see high merger and acquisition activities.  Ease of use and more competitive and straightforward pricing structures are cited as reasons for the emergence of SaaS solutions in the eDiscovery market.

The Table of Contents for the 24 page guide is as follows:

  • Market Definition
    • Technology
    • Services
  • Market Direction
    • Three Types of Solution Providers
    • Pricing
    • Market Adoption and Growth
  • Market Analysis
    • SaaS Solutions Are Gaining Momentum
    • Building Interest in Microsoft’s E-Discovery Capabilities
    • Searching Across Multiple and Hybrid Data Repositories Becomes More Onerous and Leads to Overinvestment
    • Merger and Acquisition Is Second Nature to the E-Discovery Service Market
    • The Application of Machine-Learning Technology in E-Discovery Beyond the U.S. Market
  • Representative Vendors
    • Representative E-Discovery Solution Providers
  • Market Recommendations
  • Gartner Recommended Reading

According to Rob Robinson’s Complex Discovery site (link here), the report also highlights 50 total providers in the industry (30 software providers, 20 service providers), including CloudNine (shameless plug warning!).  For software providers, deployment model and key technology capabilities or other noteworthy characteristics are identified, for service providers, the report identifies proprietary and/or third party software offered, as well as services offered.  The report concludes with recommendations for general counsel, chief compliance officers, chief information officers (CIOs) and their teams to consider when choosing and implementing eDiscovery solutions, as well as other Gartner recommended reading reports.

The report provides a current list of available software and service providers, with some useful industry observations and recommendations to help organizations in selecting the right provider for them.

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

“Master” Your Knowledge of eDiscovery Again – This Time, In New York City!: eDiscovery Trends

Back in May, I was excited and honored to moderate an enjoyable panel session in Chicago at The Masters Conference Windy City Cybersecurity, Social Media and eDiscovery event.  However, if you aren’t located in the Chicago area (or didn’t travel there for the event) you may have missed it.  Now, if you’re going to be in the New York area on July 11, you get another chance to attend!

The Masters Conference brings together leading experts and professionals from law firms, corporations and the bench to develop strategies, practices and resources for managing the information life cycle.  Like the Chicago event, the New York City 2016 IoT, Cybersecurity and Social Media Conference will cover a wide range of topics from the impact of social media and the Internet of Things (IoT) on eDiscovery risks and costs to the revolution in eDiscovery analytics to how to handle cross-border data in the wake of the Schrems decision and the new privacy shield.

The New York event will be held at the historic New Yorker Hotel, 481 8th Ave , New York, NY 10001.  Registration begins at 8am, with sessions starting right after that, at 8:30am.

CloudNine will again be sponsoring the session Faster, Cheaper, Better: How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery at 4:15.  I am excited to again be moderating, this time with Bill Dimm, CEO of Hot Neuron, Bill Speros, Evidence Consulting Attorney with Speros & Associates, LLC and Hon. Ronald J. Hedges, Principal of Ronald J. Hedges, LLC, as panelists.

Our panel discussion will provide an overview of the evolution of electronic discovery technologies and also share with attendees ways that they can consider and compare technology offerings from the large ecosystem of providers supporting litigation, investigations, and audits and includes an overview of the attributes of fourth generation eDiscovery automation technology.  It should be a very informative discussion with a very knowledgeable panel!  Hope you can join us!

Click here to register for the conference.  The cost is only $165 for a full day of sessions.  That’s hard to beat!

The Masters Conference also has an event coming up in Washington DC in October – its 10 year anniversary event!  Click here for more information on that.

So, what do you think?  Are you going to be in New York City on July 11?  If so, come join us!  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Daily will return on Tuesday.  Happy Independence Day!

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily 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?: Best of eDiscovery Daily

Even those of us at eDiscovery Daily have to take an occasional vacation (which, as you can see by the picture above, means taking the kids to their favorite water park); however, instead of “going dark” for a few days, we thought we would take a look back at some topics that we’ve covered in the past.  Today’s post takes a look back at a little experiment I performed (which was two phones ago for me, by the way).  Enjoy!

______________________________

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 (yes, that was three years and four versions ago, I will have to update the “experiment” soon to see if the speech-to-text is any better now on my Apple iPhone 6).  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. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.