All posts tagged EDRM

Modern Ediscovery: Making Sweet Music in the Virtual Age

Who wants a flip phone when you can have the latest smartphone in your pocket? No one wants to be seen as behind-the-times in this technology-driven age. When it comes to ediscovery, we want to be modern, too. In fact, we must be modern; outdated methods will simply get you (and your client) in trouble.

Recently, I had the pleasure of presenting a webinar, Ediscovery Program Management: From Vinyl to Virtual, with two ediscovery gurus – one a former colleague and one a current colleague. Along with Josh Zylbershlag, ediscovery litigation services director at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Harrison LLP and Tom Barce, director of consulting services at KrolLDiscovery, we explored the history of the music industry, comparing it to our own “vinyl to virtual” shift in the ediscovery industry. Are you still conducting ediscovery the same way you would buy music off the racks in the record store? Or, have you adapted to digital download or a streaming subscription?

  • Information Governance: Are you still managing huge file servers with no idea what’s on them, or are you an organization that creates, uses and governs information with an eye toward accessibility?
  • Legal Hold: Has your corporation adopted legal hold policies and guidelines? Have you taken it virtual by subscribing to technology solutions with effective legal hold management?
  • Collection: What about your collection processes? Are you sending droves of people to collect data every time there is a new case or are you leveraging modern remote collection technology and centralized discovery databases?
  • Search and Analysis: Is it time to update your review practices? Are you still in the dinosaur age, not using electronic workflow and batching, dynamic data profiling, innovative search analytics, predictive coding and sampling?

Our goal in this webinar: to make sweet music at each stage of the EDRM by discussing modern ediscovery practices. Want more to learn more? Watch the webinar today!

It’s Your Turn! Vote Today for the National Law Journal’s ‘Best of 2016’

The polls are open, and it’s awards season. Whatever your persuasion, it’s your turn to vote. The National Law Journal recently announced the finalists for its ‘Best of 2016,’ and Kroll Ontrack is proud to be nominated in NINE categories!

  • Best end-to-end litigation consulting firm
  • Best end-to-end ediscovery provider
  • Best technology assisted review ediscovery solution
  • Best data and technology management ediscovery provider
  • Best data recovery solution provider
  • Best managed document review services
  • Best managed ediscovery and litigation support services provider
  • Best online review platform
  • Best case management software

From now until Friday, February 5, you can vote in the annual reader’s choice survey. This is your chance to rate the products and services you’ve been using in litigation. And it’s an opportunity for those of us in the industry to receive valuable feedback.

While you don’t have to answer every question, we greatly appreciate your support and your feedback – thank you for taking the time!

It’s time to vote.

We Want to Hear from you! Submit your Stories for Legaltech New York

It’s been said that we learn a lot from our mistakes. While that’s true, it’s definitely a lot easier to learn from the mistakes of others! What better way to start the new year than to hear about real-world examples of current ediscovery gotchas?

Legaltech New York

EDRM and Kroll Ontrack are partnering to host an educational session at Legaltech New York, “25 eDiscovery Warnings in 75 Minutes,” that will give 12 people the chance to present two quick topics around current gotchas in ediscovery. George Socha, EDRM co-founder and president of Socha Consulting, will join Josh Zylbershlag, vice president of Kroll Ontrack, to moderate a fast-paced series of live stories from audience members, who will give three-minute examples from their own experiences of ediscovery situations gone wrong, explain how the issue was ultimately resolved and share their lessons learned.

“The session will offer 25 opportunities to learn from the mistakes of others – an educational and entertaining way to increase one’s own success rate,” says Socha. “We originally presented this session format at ILTACON 2015 with great success, and I look forward to digging into the new challenges and resolutions shared by Legaltech New York participants.

Sign Up!

Legaltech New York participants interested in sharing their stories during this session are encouraged to submit their ideas by January 8, 2016. Selected speakers will have six minutes – three minutes per topic – to share your gotchas with the audience. If you prefer not to speak, but have a great idea for a gotcha, send it our way. You’ll get the credit without the pressure. Each topic should describe a gotcha and offer a solution.

The session will be held on Wednesday, February 3, from 3:45 to 5:00pm ET.

Making Music: Ediscovery Collaboration

From a hip-hop country mix “Cruise,” to the smash hit “Thrift Shop,” 2013 was a year of musical collaborations. Nevertheless, collaborations are not new: from Sinatra’s Duets to Dolly Parton and Kenny Rogers’ “Islands in the Stream,” collaborations are a staple in pop culture. The reason behind this is while a solo artist can create beautiful music, the harmony of two contrasting voices generates a unique and compelling sound.

Great collaborations, however, are not limited to stadiums and Grammies. Since the beginning of ediscovery, collaborations, in the form of mergers, acquisitions and partnerships, have been an industry staple. It is through these partnerships that the industry moves forward. Like pop culture collaborations, two ediscovery providers working together can create beautiful music.

In ediscovery, it is not uncommon to think of ediscovery tools in a vacuum, serving a niche of the EDRM – such as a singular review program – that solves only one piece of the puzzle. These tools are unconnected, operating apart from one another, as so many musicians do for years.  For this reason, law firms and corporations often have more than one ediscovery tool at their disposal. They often run more than one software package at the same time, trying to patch together a full solution. There is no streamlined, standardized way to use different tools together. This problem has led to a push for better visibility across all tools and cases to allow consolidation of work across the ediscovery portfolio.

This is the exact reason that today, Kroll Ontrack announced it is now a Premium Hosting Partner for kCura’s Relativity platform.  kCura’s Relativity review tool will now be offered as part of Kroll Ontrack’s platform alongside the Collect, Review and Manage tools. The joint venture gives law firms and corporations review tool choice based on the needs of the project while also making it easier to consolidate their project portfolio. Regardless of the chosen review tool , transparency into all the work being done on your cases, as well as the ability to direct actions, is possible via the Manage Project Wall. With the ability to bring together ediscovery projects in a unified technology platform and manage them as a portfolio, ediscovery can transform from an art to a science. This kind of collaboration is, like some musical collaboration, pure genius.

In the above montage, from upper left, clockwise:
Colbie Callait & Jason Mraz; David Bowie & Mick Jagger; Louis Armstrong & Ella Fitzgerald; Frank Sinatra & Dean Martin; Mariah Carey & Whitney Houston; Paul McCartney & Michael Jackson; Macklemore & Ryan Lewis; Justin Timberlake & Jay-Z; Dolly Parton & Kenny Rogers

What Do Robin Thicke and the EDRM Have in Common?

The answer: blurred lines.

…Okay, now that I have your attention, I should note that post doesn’t really have anything to do with the controversial and provocative Robin Thicke song that was all over the airwaves this summer. Instead, I’m talking about two equally appealing topics (at least to those in ediscovery): Early Data Assessment (EDA) and Technology Assisted Review.

We have written a lot lately about ways to cut ediscovery costs, and both EDA and TAR (or predictive coding) are keys to reducing costs and maximizing ediscovery efficiencies. While both tools empower attorneys to build a better picture of the data and documents involved in a case, TAR solutions are often viewed as wholly separate tools. However, many practitioners now employ TAR at various stages of the EDRM workflow, and TAR often performs the analysis that is so imperative to the EDA process. Practically, TAR is a complimentary tool that enhances EDA, rather than a standalone solution.

For a more critical analysis this evolution, be sure to attend Analysis 360: Blurring the Lines Between EDA and TAR on November 20, hosted by Anthony J. Diana, partner at Mayer Brown, and Jonathan Sachs, Account Executive at Kroll Ontrack.

Hear it From the Experts: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

Webinar or Podcast: You Choose!

In case you missed it, last week’s webinar featured a rousing discussion about how to effectively manage a portfolio of ediscovery cases. Instead of focusing on how to whittle costs in one project within the EDRM, eDJ’s Greg Buckles and John Addington from Dell discuss the massive efficiencies that can only be unlocked through a holistic, multi-matter approach to ediscovery.  Log on today and listen to the recorded webinar: “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: Effectively Managing Ediscovery Portfolios”.

If you only have 20 minutes, then download the podcast and listen on your commute home!  John Addington from Dell talks with Michele Lange about the same topic – ediscovery portfolio management.

Don’t miss either of these great interviews!

The EDRM’s New Computer Assisted Review Reference Model: Explained

Last month I was invited by the EDRM to take part in their webinar on the Computer Assisted Review Reference Model (CARRM). I was joined by three esteemed Technology Assisted Review experts: George Socha, EDRM, Herbert Roitblat, OrcaTec and Bob Rohlf, Exterro.

We took this chance to dive into the fascinating world that is predictive coding, also known as Technology Assisted Review (TAR), Computer Assisted Review (CAR), or intelligent review.  Predictive coding is the use of computer technologies to rank or categorize a collection of documents as responsive or not based on human review of a subset of the collection.

The talk started with a discussion of how we got to predictive coding today, and why the court’s blessing to use predictive coding in certain civil litigation cases is so important. Since the first blessing by Judge Peck in February of 2012, the number of cases using predictive coding has grown substantially. Without that blessing, it is unlikely predictive coding would still be growing.

The next question we addressed was simply “Why Predictive Coding?” The other experts and I discussed the ways predictive coding saves time and resources by finding the right documents as fast as possible, sorting and grouping documents more efficiently and validating the reviewer’s work before production.

After the opening discussion, we dove into an assortment of predictive coding topics, including the variety of technologies available and their differences, how to conduct effective predictive coding, and predictive coding workflow.

We closed the forum by discussing the best practices in ediscovery and predictive coding:

  • To be efficient, you must know which questions to ask your ediscovery experts – this means doing your research.
  • You need to be proactive in your firm’s ediscovery plan: create a plan and stick to it!
  • Be sure to ensure quality controls so the results are respectable.
  • Finally, do not be afraid to ask for help when you do not understand the process. The field is very new and growing.

For those of you who missed the webinar and would like a closer look, check out the recording of the EDRM’s New Computer Assisted Review Reference Model (CARRM)—Beyond the Test Drive and be sure to check out Kroll Ontrack’s Slideshare account for the latest presentations and infographics.

Ediscovery Pricing Pains

Recently, Casey Flaherty, Corporate Counsel at Kia Motors, authored an article about how he approaches comparing costs in the  current chaotic ediscovery pricing landscape.  Flaherty boldly asserts: “Standardizing a method for comparing EDD vendor cost projections is long past due.”  He continues by suggesting that such a cost-comparison spreadsheet is a necessary tool which should be developed and maintained by a group such as the Sedona Conference, the EDRM or the EDBP.

Flaherty’s article is evidence of the gyrations that corporations and law firms go through when analyzing ediscovery pricing.  Per page.  Per gigabyte.  Per hour.  Per day.  Per month.  Flat fee.  Annual subscription.  Kudos to Flaherty for bringing his method to light and encouraging everyone else in the industry to do the same.

It makes plain business sense to structure ediscovery pricing around transparency, and Kroll Ontrack is trying to help drive the market toward that rational ediscovery pricing panacea.  Recently, Kroll Ontrack launched a new pricing model, containing a wave of pricing options including:

  1. Traditional a la carte (line-item comparisons) – traditional pricing based on different actions in the EDRM – keep the spreadsheets for those who want them
  2. Total project price – all of the bells and whistles for one bottom-line project price – for those sick of fashioning “order from chaos”
  3. Portfolio pricing – a monthly fee based on a revolving-door portfolio of matters limited only by capacity and duration – ediscovery pricing can really be as simple as X gigabytes for $Y/month

To be perfectly frank, in an industry where everything can change overnight, this problem has persisted for too long. That’s why allowing clients to price projects on their terms is a great first step in clarifying ediscovery pricing pains.

The CARRM: Beyond the Test-Drive

Whichever name you give it – predictive coding, computer assisted review (CAR), or technology-assisted review (TAR) – predictive coding is an amazing tool in the field of ediscovery. In 2012, the EDRM published a new Computer Assisted Review Reference Model (CARRM) framework to demystify this new technique.

 First and foremost, the CARRM strongly emphasizes a planning process, during which the review team should:

  • Determine the desired outcome of the predictive coding process
  • Build rules and methods specific to the case for both human reviewers and the technology
  • Educate the reviewers who are involved in the predictive coding process about those rules and methods

Next, the CARRM identifies a process of coding documents, from which the technology learns and classifies other documents in the corpus, followed by human testing and evaluation. This process is iterative, meaning these steps should continue in a cycle until appropriate retrieval metrics (such as precision, recall and f-measure) are achieved and the initial goals are met. Once the evaluation stage is complete, the predictive coding process can end and the team may move on to the next phase of review.

The benefits of predictive coding compared to human review are plentiful. Predictive coding can reduce time on administration and review, reduce the number of documents reviewed, increase the accuracy of review and even review documents quicker.

The bottom line is that while ediscovery budgets are cut and data volumes are ever-growing, predictive coding can help you save time and money by:

  • Finding the right documents quickly
  • Sorting documents efficiently
  • Confirming the reviewers’ work before production

What to know more? Register for the EDRM Webinar, “EDRM’S New Computer Assisted Review Reference Model (CARRM)-Beyond the Test Drive,” with industry experts George Socha, Herbet Roitbat, Bob Rohlf, and myself.  It should be a riveting conversation so be sure to register soon.

The ESI Report is Back in Business! New Ediscovery Podcast

After a brief hiatus, the ESI Report, sponsored by Kroll Ontrack and produced by the Legal Talk ESI ReportNetwork, is back on the air! We will bring you monthly ediscovery podcasts on the latest trends and case law that you can listen to anywhere.

Revving Up Your CARRM

In this new edition, George Socha of the EDRM and Tom Palladino of NightOwl Discovery join me to talk about the CARRM (Computer-Assisted Review Reference Model). Don’t miss the great interview with George and Tom – two of the contributors to the new CARRM.  [For a quick primer on the CARRM and other technology assisted review (TAR) reference models, take a look at this blog post from Jennifer Wightman.]

An Ediscovery “Puzzler”: Real or Fake

Because we don’t always have to be serious on the ESI Report, the new Arguably Relevant segment on the podcast takes our guests on a quick jaunt through some of the more light-hearted subject matter in ediscovery. This month, we challenged our guests to identify a witty snippet from a real judicial opinion versus a fictitious judicial quote concocted by ESI Report writers.

See if you can guess which are real, and score your answers with the key at the bottom of the blog post. (Hint: three of the quotes are genuine.)

  1. Real or Fake: “By destroying his computer with a sledge hammer, the plaintiff’s conduct was egregious enough to fortify his claims against the defendant; thereby, the court finds it appropriate to hammer these claims with a dismissal.
  2. Real or Fake: “This is a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth . . . the litigation was conducted in an Inspector Clouseau-like fashion. However, unlike a Pink Panther film, there was nothing amusing about this conduct
  3. Real or Fake: “Imagine a standup comic who delivers the punch-lines of his jokes first, a plane with landing gear that deploys just after touchdown . . . that’s what document production after trial is like—it defeats the purpose.”
  4. Real or Fake:  “Short of ordering a lobotomy—which, of course, this court cannot do—I strongly encourage the plaintiffs to forget these portions of the meeting notes and focus on documents that actually are discoverable.”
  5. Real or Fake: “American lawyers engaged in discovery have never been accused of asking for too little. To the contrary, like the Rolling Stones, they hope that if they ask for what they want they will get what they need.”
  6. Real or Fake: “Counsel could have included ‘Mickey Mouse’ or ‘Donald Duck’—both of which would have been about as useful as the information listed on the plaintiff’s privilege log.”

To hear how ESI Report guests, George Socha and Tom Palladino, scored on the Arguably Relevant ediscovery puzzler, download the full podcast here.  Lastly, don’t forget to subscribe to the RSS feed, so that podcasts from the Legal Talk Network appear in your iTunes account each month for free!

Ediscovery Puzzler Answers:

Answers: 1. Fake; 2. Real (Coquina Invs. v. Rothstein); 3. Real (DL v. Dist. of Columbia); 4. Fake; 5. Real (McPeek v. Ashcroft); 6. Fake