Close
Enter your
text here

Searching

eDiscovery Best Practices: Database Discovery Pop Quiz
 

Databases: You can’t live with them, you can’t live without them.

Or so it seems in eDiscovery.  On a regular basis, I’ve seen various articles and discussions related to discovery of databases and other structured data and I remain very surprised how few legal teams understand database discovery and know how to handle it.  A colleague of mine (who I’ve known over the years to be honest and reliable) even claimed to me a few months back while working for a nationally known eDiscovery provider that their collection procedures actually excluded database files.

Last month, Law.com had an article written by Craig Ball, called Ubiquitous Databases, which provided a lot of good information about database discovery. It included various examples how databases touch our lives every day, while noting that eDiscovery is still ultra document-centric, even when those “documents” are generated from databases.  There is some really good information in that article about Database Management Software (DBMS), Structured Query Language (SQL), Entity Relationship Diagrams (ERDs) and how they are used to manage, access and understand the information contained in databases.  It’s a really good article especially for database novices who need to understand more about databases and how they “tick”.

But, maybe you already know all you need to know about databases?  Maybe you would already be ready to address eDiscovery on your databases today?

Having worked with databases for over 20 years (I stopped counting at 20), I know a few things about databases.  So, here is a brief “pop” quiz on database concepts.  Call them “Database 101” questions.  See how many you can answer!

  • What is a “Primary Key”? (hint: it is not what you start the car with)
  • What is an “Inner Join” and how does it differ from an “Outer Join”?
  • What is “Normalization”?
  • How does a “View” differ from a “Table”?
  • What does “BLOB” stand for? (hint: it’s not this)
  • What is the different between a “flat file” and a “relational” database?
  • What is a “Trigger”?
  • What is “Rollback”? (hint: it has nothing to do with Wal-Mart prices)
  • What is “Referential Integrity”?
  • Why is a “Cartesian Product” in SQL almost always a bad thing?

So, what do you think?  Are you a database guru or a database novice?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Did you think I was going to provide the answers at the bottom?  No cheating!!  I’ll answer the questions on Monday.  Hope you can stand it!!

eDiscovery Trends: Predictive Coding Strategy and Survey Results

Yesterday, we introduced the Virtual LegalTech online educational session Frontiers of E-Discovery: What Lawyers Need to Know About “Predictive Coding” and defined predictive coding while also noting the two “learning” methods that most predictive coding mechanisms use to predict document classifications.  To get background information regarding the session, including information about the speakers (Jason Baron, Maura Grossman and Bennett Borden), click here.

The session also focused on strategies for using predictive coding and results of the TREC 2010 Legal Track Learning Task on the effectiveness of “Predictive Coding” technologies.  Strategies discussed by Bennett Borden include:

  • Understanding the technology used by a particular provider:  Not only will supervised and active learning mechanisms often yield different results, but there are differing technologies within each of these learning mechanisms.
  • Understand the state of the law regarding predictive coding technology: So far, there is no case law available regarding use of this technology and, while it may eventually be the future of document review, that has yet to be established.
  • Obtain buy-in by the requesting party to use predictive coding technology: It’s much easier when the requesting party has agreed to your proposed approach and that agreement is included in an order of the court which covers the approach and also includes a FRE 502 “clawback” agreement and order.  To have a chance to obtain that buy-in and agreement, you’ll need a diligent approach that includes “tiering” of the collection by probable responsiveness and appropriate sampling of each tier level.

Maura Grossman then described TREC 2010 Legal Track Learning Task on the effectiveness of “Predictive Coding” technologies.  The team took the EDRM Enron Version 2 Dataset of 1.3 million public domain files, deduped it down to 685,000+ unique files and 5.5 GB of uncompressed data.  The team also identified eight different hypothetical eDiscovery requests for the test.

Participating predictive coding technologies were then given a “seed set” of roughly 1,000 documents that had previously been identified by TREC as responsive or non-responsive to each of the requests. Using this information, participants were required to rank the documents in the larger collection from most likely to least likely to be responsive, and estimate the likelihood of responsiveness as a probability for each document.  The study ranked the participants on recall rate accuracy based on 30% of the collection retrieved (200,000 files) and also on the predicted recall to determine a prediction accuracy.

The results?  Actual recall rates for all eight discovery requests ranged widely among the tools from 85.1% actual recall down to 38.2% (on individual requests, the range was even wider – as much as 82% different between the high and the low).  The prediction accuracy rates for the tools also ranged somewhat widely, from a high of 95% to a low of 42%.

Based on this study, it is clear that these technologies can differ significantly on how effective and efficient they are at correctly ranking and categorizing remaining documents in the collection based on the exemplar “seed set” of documents.  So, it’s always important to conduct sampling of both machine coded and human coded documents for quality control in any project, with or without predictive coding (we sometimes forget that human coded documents can just as often be incorrectly coded!).

For more about the TREC 2010 Legal Track study, click here.  As noted yesterday, you can also check out a replay of the session or download the slides for the presentation at the Virtual LegalTech site.

Full Disclosure: Trial Solutions provides predictive coding services using Hot Neuron LLC’s Clustify™, which categorizes documents by looking for similar documents in the exemplar set that satisfy a user-specified criteria, such as a minimum conceptual similarity or near-duplicate percentage.

So, what do you think?  Have you used predictive coding on a case?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: What the Heck is “Predictive Coding”?
 

Yesterday, ALM hosted another Virtual LegalTech online "live" day online.  Every quarter, theVirtual LegalTech site has a “live” day with educational sessions from 9 AM to 5 PM ET, most of which provide CLE credit in certain states (New York, California, Florida, and Illinois).

One of yesterday’s sessions was Frontiers of E-Discovery: What Lawyers Need to Know About “Predictive Coding”.  The speakers for this session were:

Jason Baron: Director of Litigation for the National Archives and Records Administration, a founding co-coordinator of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Text Retrieval Conference (“TREC”) legal track and co-chair and editor-in-chief for various working groups for The Sedona Conference®;

Maura Grossman: Counsel at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, co-chair of the eDiscovery Working Group advising the New York State Unified Court System and coordinator of the 2010 TREC legal track; and

Bennett Borden: co-chair of the e-Discovery and Information Governance Section at Williams Mullen and member of Working Group I of The Sedona Conference on Electronic Document Retention and Production, as well as the Cloud Computing Drafting Group.

This highly qualified panel discussed a number of topics related to predictive coding, including practical applications of predictive coding technologies and results of the TREC 2010 Legal Track Learning Task on the effectiveness of “Predictive Coding” technologies.

Before discussing the strategies for using predictive coding technologies and the results of the TREC study, it’s important to understand what predictive coding is.  The panel gave the best descriptive definition that I’ve seen yet for predictive coding, as follows:

“The use of machine learning technologies to categorize an entire collection of documents as responsive or non-responsive, based on human review of only a subset of the document collection. These technologies typically rank the documents from most to least likely to be responsive to a specific information request. This ranking can then be used to “cut” or partition the documents into one or more categories, such as potentially responsive or not, in need of further review or not, etc.”

The panel used an analogy for predictive coding by relating it to spam filters that review and classify email and learn based on previous classifications which emails can be considered “spam”.  Just as no spam filter perfectly classifies all emails as spam or legitimate, predictive coding does not perfectly identify all relevant documents.  However, they can “learn” to identify most of the relevant documents based on one of two “learning” methods:

  • Supervised Learning: a human chooses a set of “exemplar” documents that feed the system and enable it to rank the remaining documents in the collection based on their similarity to the exemplars (e.g., “more like this”);
  • Active Learning: the system chooses the exemplars on which human reviewers make relevancy determinations, then the system learns from those classifications to apply to the remaining documents in the collection.

Tomorrow, I “predict” we will get into the strategies and the results of the TREC study.  You can check out a replay of the session at theVirtual LegalTech site. You’ll need to register – it’s free – then login and go to the CLE Center Auditorium upon entering the site (which is up all year, not just on "live days").  Scroll down until you see this session and then click on “Attend Now” to view the replay presentation.  You can also go to the Resource Center at the site and download the slides for the presentation.

So, what do you think?  Do you have experience with predictive coding?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Law: Spoliate Evidence and Go to Jail–OR NOT?!?

As previously referenced in eDiscovery Daily, defendant Mark Pappas, President of Creative Pipe, Inc., was ordered by Judge Paul W. Grimm to  “be imprisoned for a period not to exceed two years, unless and until he pays to Plaintiff the attorney’s fees and costs that will be awarded to Plaintiff as the prevailing party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).”.

Judge Grimm found that “Defendants…deleted, destroyed, and otherwise failed to preserve evidence; and repeatedly misrepresented the completeness of their discovery production to opposing counsel and the Court.”  As a result, he ordered “that Pappas’s pervasive and willful violation of serial Court orders to preserve and produce ESI evidence be treated as contempt of court”, resulting in the severe sanction.

Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Grimm’s September 9 decision and order and the relevant local rule, however, defendants were allowed to object to the same order. In that briefing, Mr. Pappas’ counsel argued that “[t]his Court’s power to impose a coercive civil contempt sanction … is limited by a party’s ability to comply with the order,” and further that, “[i]f the fee awarded is so large that Mr. Pappas is unable to pay it, the ordered confinement would not be coercive, but punitive, and could not be imposed without criminal due process protections.” Defendants thus requested that Magistrate Judge Grimm’s order be modified such that, following the quantification of the fee award, Mr. Pappas be permitted to demonstrate his inability to pay it, and further to provide that Mr. Pappas would only be confined if he is able to pay but refuses to do so. The District Court agreed with Mr. Pappas’ counsel and, on November 1, 2010, issued a Memorandum and Order holding as follows: “[T]he Court does not find it appropriate to Order Defendant Pappas incarcerated for a future possible failure to comply with his obligation to make payment of an amount to be determined in the course of further proceedings. Certainly, if Defendant Pappas should fail to comply with a specific payment order, the Court may issue an order requiring him to show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt for failure to comply with that payment order. Also, under appropriate circumstances, criminal contempt proceedings might be considered.”

That same day, the Court further ordered that defendants must pay plaintiff the amount of $337,796.37 by November 5 and, if such payment is not made, defendants must appear on November 8 for a civil contempt hearing. Moreover, if defendants failed to pay and Mr. Pappas failed to appear at the civil contempt hearing, “a warrant may be issued for his arrest so that he shall be brought before the Court as soon as may be practicable.” From the docket it appears that ultimately the parties resolved the issue between them without the need for a further contempt proceeding.

So, what do you think?  What will happen next?  Please share any comments you might have (including examples of other cases where sanctions included jail time) or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: E-Discovery Law Alert, by Gibbons P.C.

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 Tips: Word’s Stupid “Smart Quotes”

I have run into this issue more times than I can count.

A client sends me a list of search terms that they want to use to cull a set of data for review in a Microsoft® Word document.  I copy the terms into the search tool and then, all hell breaks loose!!  Either:

The search indicates there is a syntax error

OR

The search returns some obviously odd results

And, then, I remember…

It’s those stupid Word “smart quotes”.  Starting with Office 2003, Microsoft Word, by default, automatically changes straight quotation marks ( ‘ or ” ) to curly quotes as you type. This is fine for display of a document in Word, but when you copy that text to a format that doesn’t support the smart quotes (such as HTML or a plain text editor), the quotes will show up as garbage characters because they are not supported ASCII characters.  So:

“smart quotes” aren’t very smart

will look like this…

âsmart quotesâ arenât very smart

As you can imagine, that doesn’t look so “smart” when you feed it into a search tool and you get odd results (if the search even runs).  So, you’ll need to address those to make sure that the quotes are handled correctly when searching for phrases with your search tool.

To disable the automatic changing of quotes to Microsoft Word smart quotes: For Office 2007, click the Microsoft Office icon button at the top left of Word, and then click the Word Options button to open options for Word.  Click Proofing along the side of the pop-up window, then click AutoCorrect Options.  Click the AutoFormat tab and uncheck the Replace “Smart Quotes” with “Smart Quotes” check box.  Then, click OK.

To replace Microsoft Word smart quotes already in a file: Often, however, the file you’ve received already has smart quotes in it.  If you’re going to use the terms in that file, you’ll need to copy them to a text editor first – Notepad or Wordpad (if Wordpad is in plain text document mode) should be fine.  Highlight the beginning quote and copy it to the clipboard (Ctrl+C), then Ctrl+H to open up the Find and Replace dialog, put your cursor in the Find box and press Ctrl+V to paste it in.  Type the “ character on the keyboard into the Replace box, then press Replace All to replace all beginning smart quotes with straight ones.  Repeat the process for the ending smart quotes.  You’ll also have to do this if you have any single quotes, double-hyphens, fraction characters (e.g., Word converts “1/2” to “½”), etc. that impact your terms.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever run into issues with Word smart quotes or other Word auto formatting options?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

From all of us at Trial Solutions…Have a Happy Thanksgiving!!

eDiscovery Trends: Sedona Conference Commentary on Proportionality
 

Last month, The Sedona Conference® made available its Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Discovery, which is a project of The Sedona Conference Working Group on Electronic Document Retention & Production (WG1).  The commentary is initially being published as a "public comment version", giving participants in the legal industry an opportunity to provide comments that the editors will review and incorporate edits where appropriate into the final version.  A copy of the PDF publication can be downloaded here.

The commentary discusses the origins of the doctrine of proportionality, provides examples of its application and proposes principles for guidance, providing “a framework for the application of the doctrine of proportionality to all aspects of electronic discovery”.  Among other things, the publication identifies six Principles of Proportionality intended to provide that framework, using existing (Federal) rules and case law to support each principle.  These common-sense principles are:

  1. The burdens and costs of preservation of potentially relevant information should be weighed against the potential value and uniqueness of the information when determining the appropriate scope of preservation.
  2. Discovery should generally be obtained from the most convenient, least burdensome, and least expensive sources.
  3. Undue burden, expense, or delay resulting from a party’s action or inaction should be weighed against that party.
  4. Extrinsic information and sampling may assist in the analysis of whether requested discovery is sufficiently important to warrant the potential burden or expense of its production.
  5. Nonmonetary factors should be considered when evaluating the burdens and benefits of discovery.
  6. Technologies to reduce cost and burden should be considered in the proportionality analysis.

After stating the six principles above, the commentary goes on to discuss specific rules and case law that supports issues to consider such as the availability of information from other sources, waiver and undue delay, and burden versus benefit.  It then goes on to discuss the existing rules and case law that supports each principle.

To submit a public comment, you can download a public comment form here, complete it and fax(!) it to The Sedona Conference® at 928-284-4240.  If, like me, you’re opposed to using 1990s technology to submit your comments, the publication also notes that you can also submit feedback by emailing them at rgb@sedonaconference.org.

So, what do you think?  Have you encountered any cases where proportionality of discovery requests are at issue? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Searching: Types of Exception Files

Friday, we talked about how to address the handling of exception files through agreement with opposing counsel (typically, via the meet and confer) to manage costs and avoid the potential for spoliation claims.  There are different types of exception files that might be encountered in a typical ESI collection and it’s important to know how those files can be recovered.

Types of Exception Files

It’s important to note that efforts to “fix” these files will often also change the files (and the metadata associated with them), 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: Files can become corrupted for a variety of reasons, from application failures to system crashes to computer viruses.  I recently had a case where 40% of the collection was contained in 2 corrupt Outlook PST files – fortunately, we were able to repair those files and recover the messages.  If you have readily 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 SCANPST.EXE that scans and repairs PST and OST files, and there are utilities (including freeware utilities) available via the web for most file types.  If all else fails, you can hire a data recovery expert, but that can get very expensive.
  • Password Protected Files: 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 viewed to support review (though some search engines may fail to index them).  If a file is password protected, you can try to obtain the password from the custodian providing the file – 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: In most collections, there are some unusual file types that aren’t supported by the review application, such as files for legacy or specialized applications (e.g., AutoCad for engineering drawings).  You may not even initially know what type of files they are; if not, you can find out based on file extension by looking the file extension up in FILExt.  If your review application can’t read the files, it also can’t index the files for searching or display them for review.  If those files may be responsive to discovery requests, review them with the native application to determine their relevancy.
  • No-Text Files: Files with no searchable text aren’t really exceptions – they have to be accounted for, but they won’t be retrieved in searches, so it’s important to make sure they don’t “slip through the cracks”.  It’s common to perform Optical Character Recognition (OCR) on TIFF files and image-only PDF files, because they are common document formats.  Other types of no-text files, such as pictures in JPEG or PNG format, are usually not OCRed, unless there is an expectation that they will have significant text.

It’s important for review applications to be able to identify exception files, so that you know they won’t be retrieved in searches without additional processing.  FirstPass™, powered by Venio FPR™, is one example of an application that will flag those files during processing and enable you to search for those exceptions, so you can determine how to handle them.

So, what do you think?  Have you encountered other types of exceptions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Searching: Exceptions are the Rule
 

Virtually every collection of electronically stored information (ESI) has at least some files that cannot be effectively searched.  Corrupt files, password protected files and other types of exception files are frequent components of your ESI collection and it can become very expensive to make these files searchable or reviewable.  Being without an effective plan for addressing these files could lead to problems – even spoliation claims – in your case.

How to Address Exception Files

The best way to develop a plan for addressing these files that is reasonable and cost-effective is to come to agreement with opposing counsel on how to handle them.  The prime opportunity to obtain this agreement is during the meet and confer with opposing counsel.  The meet and confer gives you the opportunity to agree on how to address the following:

  • Efforts Required to Make Unusable Files Usable: Corrupted and password protected files may be fairly easily addressed in some cases, whereas in others, it takes extreme (i.e., costly) efforts to fix those files (if they can be fixed at all).  Up-front agreement with the opposition helps you determine how far to go in your recovery efforts to keep those recovery costs manageable.
  • Exception Reporting: Because there will usually be some files for which recovery is unsuccessful (or not attempted, if agreed upon with the opposition), you need to agree on how those files will be reported, so that they are accounted for in the production.  The information on exception reports will vary depending on agreed upon format between parties, but should typically include: file name and path, source custodian and reason for the exception (e.g., the file was corrupt).

If your case is in a jurisdiction where a meet and confer is not required (such as state cases where the state has no rules for eDiscovery), it is still best to reach out to opposing counsel to agree on the handling of exception files to control costs for addressing those files and avoid potential spoliation claims.

On Monday, we will talk about the types of exception files and the options for addressing them.  Oh, the suspense!  Hang in there!

So, what do you think?  Have you been involved in any cases where the handling of exception files was disputed?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Thought Leader Q&A: Brad Jenkins of Trial Solutions
 

Tell me about your company and the products you represent. Trial Solutions is an electronic discovery software and services company in Houston, Texas that assists corporations and law firms in the collection, processing and review of electronic data. Trial Solutions developed OnDemand™, formerly known as ImageDepot™, an online e-discovery review application which is currently used by over fifty of the top 250 law firms including seven of the top ten.  Trial Solutions also offers FirstPass™, an early case assessment and first-pass review application.  Both applications are offered as a software-as-a-service (SaaS), where Trial Solutions licenses the applications to customers for use and provides access via the Internet. Trial Solutions provides litigation support services in over 90 metropolitan areas throughout the United States and Canada.

What do you see as emerging trends for eDiscovery SaaS solutions?  I believe that one emerging trend that you’ll see is simplified pricing.  Pricing for many eDiscovery SaaS solutions is too complex and difficult for clients to understand.  Many providers base pricing on a combination of collection size and number of users (among other factors) which is confusing and penalizes organizations for adding users into a case,  I believe that organizations will expect simpler pricing models from providers with the ability to add an unlimited number of users to each case.

Another trend I expect to see is provision of more self-service capabilities giving legal teams greater control over managing their own databases and cases.  Organizations need the ability to administer their own databases, add users and maintain their rights without having to rely on the hosting provider to provide these services.  A major self-service capability is the ability to load your own data on your schedule without having to pay load fees to the hosting provider.

Why do you think that more eDiscovery SaaS solutions don’t provide a free self loading capability?  I don’t know.  Many SaaS solutions outside of eDiscovery enable you to upload your own data to use and share via the Web.  Facebook and YouTube enable you to upload and share pictures and videos, Google Docs is designed for sharing and maintaining business documents, and even SalesForce.com allows you to upload contacts via a comma-separated values (CSV) file.  So, loading your own data is not a new concept for SaaS solutions.  OnDemand™ is about to roll out a new SelfLoader™ module to enable clients to load their own data, for free.  With SelfLoader, clients can load their own images, OCR text files, native files and metadata to an existing OnDemand database using an industry-standard load file (IPRO’s .lfp or Concordance’s .opt) format.

Are there any other trends that you see in the industry?  One clear trend is the rising popularity in first pass review/early case assessment (or, early data assessment, as some prefer) solutions like FirstPass as corporate data proliferates at an amazing pace.  According to International Data Corporation (IDC), the amount of digital information created, captured and replicated in the world as of 2006 was 161 exabytes or 161 billion gigabytes and that is expected to rise more than six-fold by 2010 (to 988 exabytes)!  That’s enough data for a stack of books from the sun to Pluto and back again!  With more data than ever to review, attorneys will have to turn to applications to enable them to quickly cull the data to a manageable level for review – it will simply be impossible to review the entire collection in a cost-efficient and timely manner.  It will also be important for there to be a seamless transition from first pass review for culling collections to attorney linear review for final determination of relevancy and privilege and Trial Solutions provides a fully integrated approach with FirstPass and OnDemand.

About Brad Jenkins
Brad Jenkins, President and CEO of Trial Solutions, has over 20 years of experience leading customer focused companies in the litigation support arena. Brad has authored many articles on litigation support issues, and has spoken before national audiences on document management practices and solutions.

Thought Leader Q&A: Chris Jurkiewicz of Venio Systems
 

Tell me about your company and the products you represent.  Venio Systems is an Electronic Discovery software solution provider specializing in early case assessment and first pass review.  Our product, Venio FPR™, allows forensic units, attorneys and litigation support teams to process, analyze, search, report, interact with and export responsive data for linear review or production.

What do you consider to be the reason for the enormous growth of early case assessment/first pass review tools in the industry?  I believe much of the growth we’ve seen in the past few years can be attributed to many factors, of which the primary one is the exponential growth of data within an organization.  The inexpensive cost of data storage available to an organization is making it easier for them to keep unnecessary data on their systems.  Companies who practice litigation and/or work with litigative data are seeking out quick and cost effective methods of funneling the necessary data from all the unnecessary data stored in these vast systems thereby making early case assessment/first pass review tools not only appealing but necessary.

Are there other areas where first pass review tools can be useful during eDiscovery?  Clients have found creative ways in using first pass review/ECA technology; recently a client utilized it to analyze a recent production received by opposing counsel. They were able to determine that the email information produced was not complete.  They were then able to force the opposing counsel to fill in the missing email gaps.

There have been several key cases related to search defensibility in the past couple of years.  How will those decisions affect organizations’ approach to ESI searching?  More organizations will have to adopt a defensible process for searching and use tools that support that process.  Venio’s software has many key features focused on search defensibility including: Search List Analysis, Wild Card Variation searching, Search Audit Reporting and Fuzzy Searching.  All searches run in Venio FPR™ are audited by user, date and time, terms, scope, and frequency.  By using these tools, clients have been able to find additional responsive files that would be otherwise missed and easily document their search approach and refinement.

How do you think the explosion of data and technology will affect the review process in the future?  I believe that technology will continue to evolve and provide innovative tools to allow for more efficient reviews of ESI.  In the past few years the industry has already seen several new technologies released such as near deduping, concept searching and clustering which have significantly improved the speed of the review.  Legal teams will have to continue to make greater utilization of these technologies to provide efficient and cost-effective review as their clients will demand it.

About Chris Jurkiewicz
Chris graduated in 2000 with a Bachelor of Science in Computer Information Systems at Marymount University in Arlington, Virginia.  He began working for On-Site Sourcing while still an intern at Marymount and became the youngest Director on On-Site’s management team within three years as the Director of their Electronic Data Discovery Division.  In 2009, Chris co-founded Venio Systems to fill a void in Early Case Assessment (ECA) technology with Venio FPR™ to provide law firms, corporations and government entities the ability to gain a comprehensive picture of their data set at the front-end; thereby, saving precious time and money on the back-end..  Chris is an industry recognized expert in the field of eDiscovery, having spoken on several eDiscovery panels and served as an eDiscovery expert witness.