Close
Enter your
text here

Review

For a More Complete and Accurate Review, Be Persistent: eDiscovery Best Practices

Manual document review can be prone to error.  It’s easy to miss highly relevant documents or privileged documents if you fail to spot the terms that cause them to be identified as highly relevant documents or privileged.  To help spot those terms, you have to be “persistent”.  And, there’s a new review of CloudNine that you might want to check out!

By “persistent”, I’m talking about persistent highlighting, which is the topic for this week’s eDiscovery Tech Tip of the Week (see what I did there?).  :o)  Let’s face it: Failing to spot highly relevant, hot or privilege terms during document review can lead to important documents being missed or inadvertent disclosure of privileged information.  Persistent highlighting enables these important terms to be always highlighted – regardless of search criteria – enabling them to be more easily spotted during review, which improves the quality of the review process.

When a review platform offers persistent highlighting, there is typically an area where you can identify the terms that you want to always be highlighted.  Once you build that list, those terms will then always be highlighted anytime you review a document containing them, generally in a color different than the highlight color used for highlighting retrieved search terms.

Persistent highlighting can help improve the accuracy and completeness of your review and can help reduce potential inadvertent disclosures of privileged information.  To see an example of how Persistent Highlighting is conducted using our CloudNine platform, click here (requires BrightTalk account, which is free).

———————————————

When evaluating an eDiscovery platform, it’s important to check out reviews of the platform so that you can gain from other perspectives on what those people like about a platform and where there are opportunities for improvement.  As we discussed previously, sites like Capterra, G2 Crowd and Gartner Peer Insights enable you to learn about actual client experiences with the platform.  And, earlier this month, we covered this free Buyer’s Guide, which reviews several eDiscovery solutions, including CloudNine, in a variety of product categories.

Now, here’s a new review of our CloudNine platform by industry thought leader Tom O’Connor.  As you may know, Tom is a long time consultant in the industry and also does some work with CloudNine, as well as participating on our webcasts with me (which has been great fun!) and writing articles.  Now, Tom has written a review of our platform that covers the full range of features, while also identifying some features he would like to see added.  So, I guess I can’t retire yet?  Thanks a lot, Tom!  ;o)  Anyway, here is a link to Tom’s review of CloudNine for your consideration.

So, what do you think?  Do you use persistent highlighting in your review processes?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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 Disagrees with Plaintiff’s Contentions that Defendant’s TAR Process is Defective: eDiscovery Case Law

In Winfield, et al. v. City of New York, No. 15-CV-05236 (LTS) (KHP) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2017), New York Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker, after conducting an in camera review of the defendant’s TAR process and a sample set of documents, granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion, ordering the defendant to provide copies of specific documents where the parties disagreed on their responsiveness and a random sample of 300 additional documents deemed non-responsive by the defendant.  Judge Parker denied the plaintiff’s request for information about the defendant’s TAR process, finding no evidence of gross negligence or unreasonableness in their process.

Case Background

In this dispute over alleged discrimination in the City’s affordable housing program, the parties had numerous disputes over the handling of discovery by the defendant in the case.  The plaintiffs lodged numerous complaints about the pace of discovery and document review, which initially involved only manual linear review of documents, so the Court directed the defendant to complete linear review as to certain custodians and begin using Technology Assisted Review (“TAR”) software for the rest of the collection.  After a dispute over the search terms selected for use, the plaintiffs proposed over 800 additional search terms to be run on certain custodians, most of which (after negotiation) were accepted by the defendant (despite a stated additional cost of $248,000 to review the documents).

The defendant proposed to use its TAR software for this review, but the plaintiffs objected, contending that the defendant had over-designated documents as privileged and non-responsive, using an “impermissibly narrow view of responsiveness” during its review process.  To support its contention, the plaintiffs produced certain documents to the Court that the defendant produced inadvertently (including 5 inadvertently produced slip sheets of documents not produced), which they contended should have been marked responsive and relevant.  As a result, the Court required the defendant to submit a letter for in camera review describing its predictive coding process and training for document reviewers.  The Court also required the defendant to provide a privilege log for a sample set of 80 documents that it designated as privileged in its initial review.  Out of those 80 documents, the defendant maintained its original privilege assertions over only 20 documents, finding 36 of them non-privileged and producing them as responsive and another 15 of them as non-responsive.

As a result, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting random samples of several categories of documents and also sought information about the TAR ranking system used by the defendant and all materials submitted by the defendant for the Court’s in camera review relating to predictive coding.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Parker noted that both parties did “misconstrue the Court’s rulings during the February 16, 2017 conference” and ordered the defendant to “expand its search for documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ document requests as it construed this Court’s prior ruling too narrowly”, indicating that the plaintiffs should meet and confer with the defendant after reviewing the additional production if they “believe that the City impermissibly withheld documents responsive to specific requests”.

As for the plaintiffs’ challenges to the defendant’s TAR process, Judge Parker referenced Hyles v. New York City, where Judge Andrew Peck, referencing Sedona Principle 6, stated the producing party is in the best position to “evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.”  Judge Parker also noted that “[c]ourts are split as to the degree of transparency required by the producing party as to its predictive coding process”, citing cases that considered seed sets as work product and other cases that supported transparency of seed sets.  Relying on her in camera review of the materials provided by the defendant, Judge Parker concluded “that the City appropriately trained and utilized its TAR system”, noting that the defendant’s seed set “included over 7,200 documents that were reviewed by the City’s document review team and marked as responsive or non-responsive in order to train the system” and that “the City provided detailed training to its document review team as to the issues in the case.”

As a result, Judge Parker ordered the defendant “to produce the five ‘slip-sheeted’ documents and the 15 NR {non-responsive documents reclassified from privileged} Documents”, “to provide to Plaintiffs a sample of 300 non-privileged documents in total from the HPD custodians and the Mayor’s Office” and to “provide Plaintiffs with a random sample of 100 non-privileged, non-responsive documents in total from the DCP/Banks review population” (after applying the plaintiffs’ search terms and utilizing TAR on that collection).  Judge Parker ordered the parties to meet and confer on any disputes “with the understanding that reasonableness and proportionality, not perfection and scorched-earth, must be their guiding principles.”  Judge Parker denied the plaintiffs’ request for information about the defendant’s TAR process (but “encouraged” the defendant to share information with the plaintiffs) and denied the plaintiffs’ request to the defendant’s in camera submissions as being protected by the work product privilege.

So, what do you think?  Should TAR ranking systems and seed sets be considered work product or should they be transparent?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

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.

CloudNine Voted as a Leader in Multiple Categories in The Recorder’s Best of 2017 Reader Ranking Survey

Eleventh Annual Issue of The Recorder’s Best Highlights eDiscovery-Centric Recognition of CloudNine

CloudNine, the eDiscovery Company (cloudnine.com) providing eDiscovery automation software and services for litigation, investigations, and audits, today highlighted its recent recognition as a leading eDiscovery provider by voters in the eleventh annual issue of The Recorder’s Best Survey.

The Recorder’s BEST OF 2017 issue was published in September with the top three responses in each of more than 80 categories shared in the annual survey results. CloudNine was voted as a leading provider in the following three reader ranking categories:

  • Best Online Review Platform (3)
  • Best Predictive Coding Solution (2)
  • Best Information Governance Solution (2)

Voting for the survey was conducted online via ballot beginning in April of 2017.

Try CloudNine at No Risk, Immediately

To sign up for a free trial of CloudNine, visit the CloudNine website (cloudnine.com), request your free account, and begin immediately to use the power and precision of simplified eDiscovery automation in your litigation, investigation, and audit efforts.

About CloudNine, The eDiscovery Company

Founded in 2002 and based in Houston, Texas, CloudNine is a legal intelligence technology company with deep expertise in the analysis, processing, and review of electronically stored information (ESI). Currently used by more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms as well as in many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine has been recognized in reports and surveys by Gartner, 451 Research, Blue Hill Research, Corporate Counsel Magazine, the New York Journal, and Texas Lawyer. CloudNine also publishes the eDiscovery Daily Blog, a trusted source of information for the legal industry. A leader in eDiscovery automation, you can learn more about CloudNine at 713.462.3885, info[at]cloudnine.com, or at cloudnine.com.

For more information contact:

Rob Robinson, CloudNine
PR@cloudnine.com
512.934.7531

CloudsNine_400x400_Transparent

Customer Snapshot: An Immediate International Compliance Challenge Met by CloudNine

An Immediate International Compliance Challenge Met by CloudNine

CloudNine, the eDiscovery Company (cloudnine.com) providing eDiscovery automation software and services for litigation, investigations, and audits, today highlighted a recent international law firm’s selection of CloudNine to provide simplified eDiscovery automation in support of its corporate compliance practice. This highlighting provides one example of how CloudNine is simplifying eDiscovery for law firms, corporations, and governmental organizations.

Customer Challenge

Our customer, a Latin America-based international law firm that advises local, regional, and international companies on country-specific corporate compliance, provides counsel and services in support of extraterritorial matters. These matters routinely range from white-collar Foreign Corruption Practices Act (FCPA) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) investigations to civil cross-border and multi-jurisdictional litigation and arbitration. With a law firm of more than 65 attorneys and 20 tax advisors and a sporadic but intense workflow requiring advanced legal discovery technology to support time-sensitive audits, investigations, and litigation, our customer was interested in evaluating an alternative eDiscovery platform to replace their current technology. Given the nature of the support and the irregular intervals of intensive discovery, our customer not only required advanced eDiscovery technology but also needed a pricing model that allowed for periodic usage without penalizing them for episodical engagements. The hope of the firm’s corporate compliance practice lead attorney was that the alternative eDiscovery technology could be utilized as an immediate replacement and serve as a permanent part of the firm’s discovery resources.

Needs Snapshot

+ Proven Provider with Compliance Expertise
+ Advanced eDiscovery Technology
+ Flexible Pricing Model
+ Immediate Implementation

CloudNine Solution

Upon being notified of the customer’s technology and business requirements for an advanced, cloud-based, SaaS-deployed eDiscovery platform that could support investigation and litigation needs while meeting business requirements, CloudNine’s customer support team immediately began working directly with the compliance practice’s lead attorney to provide a familiarization of CloudNine’s eDiscovery Platform to the firm’s multinational-focused multilingual associates. Key areas of interest to the customer highlighted during technology demonstrations included:

+ Ability of Any User to Immediately Upload, Process, Analyze, Review and Produce Electronically Stored Information (Speed)
+ Intuitive Interface for Comprehensive Capability (Simplicity)
+ Security of the Platform Based on its Private and Protected Cloud-Environment (Security)
+ Availability of A Full Suite of Professional Services to Support a Wide Range of Audit, Investigation, and Litigation Requirements (Services)

The CloudNine customer support team also developed a complete pricing strategy and model to support the customer’s business need of economical and predictable pricing without the requirement for long-term, subscription pricing commitments.  

In a time frame of fewer than two weeks from initial conversation to an agreement to go forward, CloudNine listened to the customer’s needs, developed a technology and business offering to meet the customer’s needs, and informed, educated, and instructed the customer on the use of the CloudNine eDiscovery Platform.

Results

Upon successful demonstration of the eDiscovery platform and presentation of a simplified pricing model that would meet the customer’s needs and provide cost savings over the customer’s previous eDiscovery offering, the law firm selected CloudNine in early 2017 to replace its previous technology and provide eDiscovery support for its international corporate compliance practice.

CloudNine then coordinated and deployed access to the CloudNine eDiscovery Platform to the customer’s Latin America-based associates. This seamless deployment consisted of the set-up, training, and the availability of professional services and technical support to meet the eDiscovery requirements. 

Ongoing Benefits

+ Associate Acceptance and Use of CloudNine as Primary eDiscovery Platform
+ Increased Flexibility Based on Platform Ease-of-Use
+ Decreased Costs Based on Appropriate Pricing Model

“CloudNine’s sensitivity to our compliance practice’s specific needs and ability to immediately deliver a comprehensive discovery offering has helped us better serve our international clientele who rely on us for timely advice and support on both white-collar and civil matters,” shared the Compliance Practice Lead Attorney. “They have saved us time, decreased our costs, and increased our ability to quickly and decisively to respond to critical information requirements.”

Try CloudNine at No Risk, Immediately

To sign up for a free trial of CloudNine, visit the CloudNine website (cloudnine.com), request your free account, and begin immediately to use the power and precision of simplified eDiscovery automation in your litigation, investigation, and audit efforts.

About CloudNine, The eDiscovery Company

Founded in 2002 and based in Houston, Texas, CloudNine is a legal intelligence technology company with deep expertise in the analysis, processing, and review of electronically stored information (ESI). Currently used by more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms as well as in many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine has been recognized in reports and surveys by Gartner, 451 Research, Blue Hill Research, Corporate Counsel Magazine, the New York Journal, and Texas Lawyer. CloudNine also publishes the eDiscovery Daily Blog, a trusted source of information for the legal industry. A leader in eDiscovery automation, you can learn more about CloudNine at 713.462.3885, info[at]cloudnine.com, or at cloudnine.com.

 

CloudsNine_400x400_Transparent

CloudNine Voted as a Leading Provider in Ten Categories in National Law Journal’s Best of the Midwest Reader Ranking Survey

Second Annual Best of the Midwest Survey Highlights Lawyer and Legal Professional Recognition of CloudNine

CloudNine, the eDiscovery Company (cloudnine.com) providing eDiscovery automation software and services for litigation, investigations, and audits, today announced its recognition as a leading eDiscovery provider by voters in second annual Best of the Midwest Reader Rankings from The National Law Journal.

The Best of the Midwest Survey was published in August with the top three responses in each of more than 90 categories shared in the annual survey results. CloudNine was voted as a leading provider in the following ten reader ranking categories:

  • Best End-to-End Litigation Consulting Firm (2)
  • Best Technology Assisted Review eDiscovery Solution (3)
  • Best Data & Technology Management E-Discovery Provider (1)
  • Best Managed E-Discovery & Litigation Support Service Provider (3)
  • Best Legal Hold Solution Provider (2)
  • Best Online Review Platform (3)
  • Best Managed Document Review Services (2)
  • Best Information Governance Solution (1)
  • Best Predictive Coding E-Discovery Solution (1)
  • Best Corporate Investigations Provider (1)

Voting for the survey was conducted online via ballot and, in total, over 1,000 votes were cast in this extensive survey.

“CloudNine is excited and grateful to be recognized by Midwestern lawyers and legal professionals as a leader in the delivery of data and legal discovery software and services,” shared Brad Jenkins, Chief Executive Officer of CloudNine. “We highly value this vote of confidence and are committed to increasing that confidence through a continued and diligent focus on simplifying discovery.”

Try CloudNine at No Risk, Immediately

To sign up for a free trial of CloudNine, visit the CloudNine website (cloudnine.com), request your free account, and begin immediately to use the power and precision of simplified eDiscovery automation in your litigation, investigation, and audit efforts.

About CloudNine, The eDiscovery Company

Founded in 2002 and based in Houston, Texas, CloudNine is a legal intelligence technology company with deep expertise in the analysis, processing, and review of electronically stored information (ESI). Currently used by more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms as well as in many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine has been recognized in reports and surveys by Gartner, 451 Research, Blue Hill Research, Corporate Counsel Magazine, the New York Journal, and Texas Lawyer. CloudNine also publishes the eDiscovery Daily Blog, a trusted source of information for the legal industry. A leader in eDiscovery automation, you can learn more about CloudNine at 713.462.3885, info[at]cloudnine.com, or at cloudnine.com.

For more information contact:

Rob Robinson, CMO, CloudNine
PR@cloudnine.com
512.934.7531

CloudsNine_400x400_Transparent

Daily Report “Best Of” Survey Ranks CloudNine as a Leading Provider in Multiple Categories

Daily Report’s Seventh Annual “Best Of” Survey Ranks CloudNine as a Leading Online Review Platform and Information Governance Solution

CloudNine, the eDiscovery Company (cloudnine.com) that empowers legal and business professionals with eDiscovery automation software and professional services that simplify litigation, investigations, and audits, today highlighted that it has been voted a leading online review platform and information governance solution according to the Daily Report‘s 2017 “Best Of” survey of Georgia lawyers and firm administrators.

To learn more about the results of the 2017 “Best Of” survey by the Daily Report, click here.

 

CloudsNine_400x400_Transparent

Sure, No Keyword Before TAR, But What About Keyword Instead of TAR?: eDiscovery Best Practices

Last month, we discussed whether to perform keyword search culling before performing Predictive Coding/Technology Assisted Review (TAR) and, like many have concluded before (even a judge in FCA US, LLC v. Cummins, Inc.), we agree that you shouldn’t perform keyword search culling before TAR.  But, should TAR be performed instead of keyword search – in all cases?  Is TAR always preferable to keyword search?

I was asked that question earlier this week by a colleague, so I thought I would relay what I essentially told him.

Many attorneys that I have observed over the years have typically tried to approach keyword search this way: 1) Identify a bunch of potentially responsive terms, 2) string them together with OR operators in between (i.e., {term 1} OR {term 2}, etc.), 3) run the search, 4) add family members (emails and attachments linked to the files with hits) to the results, and 5) begin review.

If that’s the keyword search methodology you plan to use, then, yes, a sound TAR approach is preferable to that approach pretty much every time.  Sure, proportionality concerns can affect the decision, but I would recommend a sound approach over an unsound approach every time.  Unfortunately, that’s the approach a lot of attorneys still use when it comes to keyword search.

However, it’s important to remember that the “A” in TAR stands for “Assisted” and that TAR is not just about the technology, it’s as much about the process that accompanies the technology.  A bad approach to using TAR will generally lead to bad results with the technology, or at least inefficient results.  “Good TAR” includes a sound process for identifying training candidates for the software, reviewing those candidates and repeating the process iteratively until the collection has been classified at a level that’s appropriate to meet the needs of the case.

What about keyword search?  “Good keyword search” also includes a sound process for identifying potentially responsive terms, using various mechanisms to refine those terms (which can include variations, at an appropriate level, that can also be responsive), performing a search for each term, testing the result set (to determine if the term is precise enough and not overbroad) and testing what was not retrieved (to determine what, if anything, might have been missed).  We covered some useful resources for testing and sampling earlier this week here.

Speaking of this week, apparently, this is my week for the “wayback machine” on this blog.  In early 2011, I described a defensible search approach for keyword search for which I created an acronym – “STARR”.  Not Ringo or Bart, but Search, Test, Analyze, Revise (if necessary), Repeat (the first four steps until precision and recall is properly balanced).  While you might think that “STARR” sounds a lot like “TAR”, I coined my acronym for the keyword search approach well before the TAR acronym became popular (just sayin’).

Regardless whether you use STARR or TAR, the key is a sound approach.  Keyword search, if you’re using a sound approach in performing it, can still be an appropriate choice for many cases and document collections.

So, what do you think?  Do you think that keyword search still has a place in eDiscovery?  If not, why not?  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.

To Keyword Cull or Not to Keyword Cull? That is the Question: eDiscovery Trends

We’re seeing a lot of discussion about whether to perform keyword searching before predictive coding.  We’ve even seen a recent case where a judge weighed in as to whether TAR with or without keyword searching is preferable.  Now, we have a new article published in the Richmond Journal of Law and Technology that weighs in as well.

In Calling an End to Culling: Predictive Coding and the New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (PDF version here), Stephanie Serhan, a law student, looks at the 2015 Federal Rules amendments (particularly Rules 1 and 26(b)(1)) as justification for applying predictive coding “at the outset on the entire universe of documents in a case.”  Serhan concludes that doing so is “far more accurate, and is not more costly or time-consuming, especially when the parties collaborate at the outset.”

Serhan discusses the importance of timing to predictive coding and explains the technical difference between predictive coding at the outset of a case vs. predictive coding after performing keyword searches.  One issue of keyword culling that Serhan notes is that it “is not as accurate because the party may lose many relevant documents if the documents do not contain the specified search terms, have typographical errors, or use alternative phraseologies”.  Serhan assumes that those “relevant documents removed by keyword culling would likely have been identified using predictive coding at the outset instead.”

Serhan also takes a look at the impact on efficiency and cost between the two methods and concludes that the “actual cost of predictive coding will likely be substantially equal in both methods since the majority of the costs will be incurred in both methods.”  She also looks at TAR related cases, both before and after the 2015 Rules changes.

More and more people have concluded that predictive coding should be done without keyword culling and with good reason.  Applying predictive coding to a set unaltered by keywords would not only likely be more accurate, but also be more efficient as keyword searching requires its own methodology that includes testing of results (and documents not retrieved) before moving on.  Unless there’s a need to limit the volume of collected data because of cost considerations, there is no need to apply keyword culling before predictive coding.

Culling that does make sense is Hash based deduplication, elimination of clearly non-responsive domains and other activities where clearly redundant or non-responsive ESI can be removed from the collection.  That’s a different type of culling that does make sense.

So, what do you think?  To keyword cull or not to keyword cull?  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 Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Court Determines TAR Without Keyword Search Culling First is Preferable: eDiscovery Case Law

In FCA US, LLC v. Cummins, Inc., No. 16-12883 (E.D.  Mich., Mar. 28, 2017), Michigan District Judge Avern Cohn “rather reluctantly” decided a dispute between the plaintiff and defendant on whether the universe of electronic material subject to Technology Assisted Review (TAR) review should first be culled by the use of search terms by agreeing with the plaintiff that “[a]pplying TAR to the universe of electronic material before any keyword search reduces the universe of electronic material is the preferred method.”

Case Background

In this dispute over the allocation of the cost incurred for an auto part that became the subject of a recall, the parties agreed on many issues relating to discovery and particularly electronic discovery.  However, one issue that they couldn’t agree on was whether the universe of electronic material subject to TAR review should first be culled by the use of search terms. The plaintiff took the position that the electronic material subject to TAR review should not first be culled by the use of search terms, while the defendant took the position that a pre-TAR culling is appropriate.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that the Court decides “rather reluctantly” to rule on the issue, Judge Cohn stated:

“Given the magnitude of the dispute and the substantial matters upon which they agree, the parties should have been able to resolve the discovery issue without the Court as decision maker. Be that as it may, having reviewed the letters and proposed orders together with some technical in-house assistance including a read of The Sedona Conference TAR Case Law Primer, 18 Sedona Con. J. ___ (forthcoming 2017), the Court is satisfied that FCA has the better postion (sic). Applying TAR to the universe of electronic material before any keyword search reduces the universe of electronic material is the preferred method. The TAR results can then be culled by the use of search terms or other methods.”

As a result, Judge Cohn agreed to enter the plaintiff’s proposed order regarding the TAR approach.

So, what do you think?  Should TAR be performed with no pre-search culling beforehand?  Should courts rule on a preferred TAR approach?  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.

CloudNine Voted as a Leading National eDiscovery Provider in Seven Categories in Corporate Counsel Reader Ranking Survey

Second Annual Best of Corporate Counsel Survey Highlights In-House Community Recognition of CloudNine

Houston, Texas (PRWEB) May 2, 2017

CloudNine, the eDiscovery Company (cloudnine.com) which provides eDiscovery automation software and professional services for litigation, investigations, and audits, today announced its recognition as a leading eDiscovery provider by voters in Corporate Counsel Magazine’s “Best of Corporate Counsel” annual reader ranking survey. 

Corporate Counsel’s Best of 2017 Survey was published in May with the top three responses in each of more than 90 categories shared in the annual survey results. CloudNine was voted as a leading provider in the following reading ranking categories:

  • Best Online Review Platform (3)
  • Best End-to-End E-Discovery Provider (3)
  • Best Technology Assisted Review E-Discovery Solution (3)
  • Best Managed E-Discovery & Litigation Support Service Provider (2)
  • Best End-to-End Litigation Consulting Firm (2)
  • Best Data & Technology Management E-Discovery Provider (3)
  • Best Information Governance Solution (3)

Voting for the survey was conducted online via ballot and limited to those working within in-house corporate legal and compliance departments. In total, over 1,500 votes were cast in this extensive national survey.

“CloudNine is excited and humbled to be recognized by in-house corporate legal and compliance professionals as a national leader in the delivery of eDiscovery software and services,” shared Brad Jenkins, Chief Executive Officer of CloudNine. “We highly value this vote of confidence and are committed to increasing that confidence through a continued focus on delivering discovery automation technology and professional services that simplify eDiscovery.”

Try CloudNine at No Risk, Immediately

To sign up for a free trial of CloudNine, visit the CloudNine website (cloudnine.com), request your free account, and begin immediately to use the power and precision of simplified eDiscovery automation in your litigation, investigation, and audits efforts.

About CloudNine, The eDiscovery Company

Founded in 2002 and based in Houston, Texas, CloudNine is a legal intelligence technology company with deep expertise in the analysis, processing, and review of electronically stored information (ESI). Currently used by more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms as well as in many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine has been recognized in reports and surveys by Gartner, 451 Research, Blue Hill Research, Corporate Counsel Magazine, the New York Journal, and Texas Lawyer. CloudNine also publishes the eDiscovery Daily Blog, a trusted source of information for the legal industry. A leader in eDiscovery automation, you can learn more about CloudNine at 713.462.3885, info[at]cloudnine.com, or at cloudnine.com.

For more information contact:

Rob Robinson, CMO, CloudNine
PR@cloudnine.com
512.934.7531

CloudsNine_400x400_Transparent