All posts tagged Ontrack Inview

Asynchronous Search? Increase Your Flexibility

Asynchronous Search? Increase Your Flexibility

Running a search in a large data set and expecting a ton of results? Rather than waiting for results to generate, in Ontrack Inview, Ontrack Advanceview, Verve EDA and Verve Review you can opt to run a search in the background while you do additional work in the application—granting you greater flexibility while the asynchronous search culls your data set.

To run a search in the background, use the Search Wizard by following these steps:

  1. On the Home tab, click Search to start a new search
  2. Specify your search criteria in the Query tab
    1. Enter a name for the search
    2. Determine whether you’re searching text, metadata, or both
    3. Enter your search terms in the Terms and Connectors section
  3. Select Run search in background to run an asynchronous search.
  4. Click Search to begin

You can continue working in the application once your search criteria is analyzed and the search is ready to begin. Once your search has been analyzed, it will appear under the Searches folder in the Document Reviewers pane. Once your asynchronous search begins running, you will be able to tell whether your search was complete by checking for one of two icons in front of the specified search folder:

Description: C:\Users\mthompson\Desktop\Capture.JPG

While your search is running in the background, you will not be able to view results until the search is complete. To update the status of an “in progress” folder, simply right click it to refresh the status of your search folder.Once your search is completed, you will have full access to all results and reports on the search.

Next time you need to cull down data with a broad keyword search, consider running an asynchronous search to cut out the wait and maximize your efficiency.

For additional help, see your User Guide or contact your Case Manager at 1-800-347-6105.

“Ditto”: Copying Categorizations between Documents

“Ditto”: Copying Categorizations between Documents

Whittling down a data set in document review can be an overwhelming task, and anything that speeds up that process is worth storing in your tool belt. In the Ontrack Inview and Verve Review platforms the “Ditto” function is a viable option for expediting first-pass review.

The Ditto function allows reviewers to copy and apply review decisions from the previously viewed document to the “target” document, overwriting or removing existing review categories on that document. Here are two basic examples of the Ditto function in action:

  “Source” Document A “Target ” Document B “Target” Document AFTER Using Ditto Function
Example #1 Document A is categorized as “responsive” Document B has no categorizations Document B is categorized as “responsive”
Example #2 Document A is categorized as “responsive” Document B is currently categorized as “non-responsive” “Non-responsive” category is replaced; Document B is categorized as “responsive”

Based on system permissions in Ontrack Inview and Verve Review, the visibility of existing document categories may be restricted to certain reviewers. The Ditto function maintains category security by disabling its use when it would mean overwriting a hidden category. Additionally, privilege comments and administrator categories are never copied. Here are two more detailed examples of the Ditto function in action:

  “Source” Document A “Target ” Document B “Target” Document AFTER Using Ditto Function
Example #3 Document A is categorized as “privileged” but also has a review category of “confidential” that is hidden to the reviewer Document B has no categorizations Document B is categorized as “privileged,” but not “confidential” because of category security
Example #4 Document A is categorized as “privileged” but also has a review category of “confidential” that is hidden to the reviewer Document B is currently categorized as “non-responsive” “Non-responsive” category is replaced with “privileged,” but not “confidential” because of category security

The Ditto function warrants consideration in your next review to reduce the number of clicks between documents, which can significantly speed up review. For more information on the Ditto function, see the Ontrack Inview and Verve Review help documentation or contact your Kroll Ontrack Case Manager at 1-800-347-6105.

The User Experience – Reinvented

The User Experience – Reinvented

Version 7.0 of the Ontrack® Inview™ review tool features a new design to dramatically enhance usability and reduce the cost of document review.

Building on 10 years of award-winning document review tool innovations, version 7.0 is now complete with a modern, fresh design and offers clients a brand new user experience. Developed by users for users, insight for the new user interface was obtained from a global team of experienced reviewers located in Kroll Ontrack document review facilities around the world. This interface, together with the unique Intelligent Review Technology (IRT), maximize the speed of document review, reiterating the company’s commitment to helping clients achieve a 50 percent plus cost savings on review.

The new, modern Ontrack Inview interface maximizes the speed of your review, saving costs by:

  • Increasing efficiency. With logical task groupings, a new intuitive ribbon bar and more right-click options, clients can gain faster access to commonly used review features.
  • Improving ease of use. Dual monitor support allows for additional screen real estate for easier viewing of potentially relevant documents.
  • Customizing your experience. With drag and drop, dockable viewing panes, the screen layout is now customizable for all review needs.

“Maximizing usability in the industry-leading Ontrack Inview review tool is of the utmost importance to Kroll Ontrack because it directly impacts efficiency, satisfaction and cost savings for our clients,” said Michele Lange, director of discovery, Kroll Ontrack. “When clients are more efficient, it takes less time to accomplish a particular review task, resulting in increased productivity, cost savings and a higher level of customer satisfaction.”

To ensure that Kroll Ontrack was delivering as promised on this new version, Kroll Ontrack conducted a usability study with a user profile of individuals with little to no experience using the Ontrack Inview tool to test the efficiency of the new review tool interface. Kroll Ontrack timed users as they conducted 10 review tasks in previous versions of the tool and in the new Ontrack Inview 7.0 interface. The usability study revealed it was easier to schedule reports, locate documents, highlight key words and translate text. Specifically, these review tasks were conducted 10 percent faster in the Ontrack Inview 7.0 review tool. The new user interface and its enhanced usability and customizability features are also available in the Ontrack® Advanceview™ early data assessment tool, which now features its own distinct look and feel customized for optimum early data assessment in litigation and regulatory matters.

“Kroll Ontrack strives to continually update its technology and services offerings to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the legal discovery process,” said George May, vice president of product strategy, Kroll Ontrack. “Innovations such as Intelligent Review Technology, which integrates expert human logic with smart technology by evaluating and learning from document review decisions, and the new Ontrack Inview 7.0 review tool reinforce our relentless commitment to helping our clients drive down the total cost of litigation. As the only end-to-end discovery services and technology provider, we are uniquely positioned to offer the most comprehensive, meaningful and cost-effective improvements to our clients to meet their varying needs. Clients can expect and should look forward to continued innovation from us in technology, services and bundled offerings in 2011 and beyond.”

The Ontrack Inview 7.0 review tool and Ontrack Advanceview 7.0 early data assessment tool are available worldwide. For more information about these tools, visit or

Intelligent Review Technology Results in Proven Cost-Savings

The ediscovery landscape is proving to be more treacherous given the rise of data proliferation and the increase in sanctions for mismanaging ESI. As the courts grow increasingly intolerant of discovery failures, litigants are faced with two choices: work harder by investing more resources to ensure thorough review, or work smarter by leveraging fewer resources with cutting-edge technology to achieve superior results. Dynamic companies know the latter is always the best option, and for them, the next generation of ediscovery technology has arrived.

Intelligent Review Technology (IRT) combines the best of both worlds by delivering the discerning analytics of a human review team in an automated platform capable of increased processing speed, consistency and accuracy. Although IRT encompasses many different technologies that can work independently or conjunctively to varying degrees, workflow automation, supervised learning and statistical quality control are the cornerstone features of an effective IRT system that together allow review to be conducted faster, more efficiently and accurately than even the best human review teams equipped with current discovery technology.

IRT learns while you work, and empowers the defensibility of your arguments with transparent reports and real-time metrics. By analyzing decisions made by lawyers, the system applies human logic to identify likely responsive documents and make categorization suggestions. IRT integrates human input with smart technology, reduces costs by 50%, and improves the quality and defensibility of document review.

The technology inside, Ontrack® Inview™, has three components:

  • Workflow: Get the right documents to the right people. Workflow is an automated means to distribute and check in documents.
  • Prioritization: See the most important documents first. Prioritization evaluates reviewer decisions to identify and elevate documents that are most likely responsive, enabling reviewers to view the most relevant documents first.
  • Categorization: Harness the power of technology to learn from human decisions.  Categorization analyzes reviewer decisions and applies logic to suggest categories for the documents not yet reviewed

Kroll Ontrack Launches Final Component of Intelligent Review Technology

Innovative Categorization Features, along with Kroll Ontrack Professional Services Experts, Drive Document Review Efficiencies and Decrease Costs

Kroll Ontrack, the leading provider of information management, data recovery and legal technologies products and services, today announced the launch of Ontrack® Inview™ version 6.5, the award-winning document review tool, which now includes Categorization functionality. Completing the Intelligent Review Technology (IRT) suite within the Ontrack Inview 6.5 tool,Workflow, Prioritization and Categorization integrate expert human logic with smart technology by evaluating and learning from document review decisions made by lawyers. Committed to building innovative discovery technology, Kroll Ontrack IRT expedites document review schedules, improves the quality of review decisions and reduces overall discovery costs, all while empowering attorneys to focus on case strategy.

The newest Ontrack Inview feature, Categorization, builds upon the Workflow and Prioritization features, which were released in June and August 2010, respectively. By analyzing human decisions and then making categorization recommendations for documents not yet reviewed, Categorization addresses a common challenge posed by traditional document review – category determinations are often made inconsistently and inefficiently. In fact, studies show that a second, repeat review, even by the same staff, often leads to different category decisions. With  Categorization technology in the Ontrack Inview review tool, learning immediately begins when category decisions are made by lawyers designated as “trainers.” The system learns with each keystroke and then applies intelligent categorizations to the rest of the review set, which can then be evaluated by the review team and validated using quality control measures.

With Workflow, Prioritization and Categorization, clients can achieve greater than 50 percent costs savings on review. Kroll Ontrack IRT works in four steps:

  1. Train: Lawyers designated as “trainers” review documents and determine whether they are responsive, non-responsive, privileged or some other pre-defined category.
  2. Learn: IRT analyzes reviewer category decisions made by trainers to identify and elevate documents that are most likely relevant and suggest categories for documents not yet reviewed.
  3. Evaluate: Reviewers make categorization decisions, leveraging intelligent suggestions.
  4. Validate: IRT is fully transparent with real-time reports and metrics available to optimize the technology and experience cost savings.

“Traditional linear review is no longer tenable. The manual aspect of document review inherently produces inaccuracies and inconsistencies in categorization decisions, which hinders the implementation of a repeatable, defensible process,” said Michele Lange, director of discovery, Kroll Ontrack. “IRT in the Ontrack Inview tool is unique when compared to other tools because it automatically selects and presents sample documents for your review team versus a review team conducting manual, iterative, time-intensive searches to find key documents from which to learn. Furthermore, Kroll Ontrack IRT learns while you work and empowers the defensibility of your arguments with transparent reports and real-time metrics. Kroll Ontrack is truly leading a revolution that is going to change the face of legal discovery.”

In addition, through its Professional Services team, Kroll Ontrack is prepared to help clients leverage this powerful technology when conducting their own reviews in order to achieve consistency, speed and cost savings. Clients also have the option of using Kroll Ontrack Document Review Services, facilities and team of highly qualified document review attorneys to fully leverage the Ontrack Inview tool and its advanced capabilities.

Multilingual Madness

Cross-border discovery is an increasing reality in today’s globalized world. Corporations and practitioners alike must begin the process of becoming education with regard to the intricacies involved in multilingual discovery in order to avoid common ediscovery pitfalls.


One of the first challenges will be data collection and the primary considerations include: location, people, tools and laws.

  • Location: It is important to identify as early as possible where the data you need to collect is located in order to create an efficient discovery strategy. In many cases, the data is scattered throughout several countries and is comprised of multiple languages, and you may need a separate plan of attack for gathering the data.
  • People: A thorough and defensible, yet timely collection is of vital importance to your discovery efforts. Be sure to send only qualified and experienced people to work on the collection, especially when the collection occurs abroad. If possible, look to leverage a data collection effort by utilizing local collection experts.
  • Tools: Certain collection tools commonly used for electronic English-language data collection do not support collecting data in other languages. You must ensure that your collection tools support any languages or character sets you might encounter in collection.
  • Laws: Collecting data on foreign soil may raise legal roadblocks not common in the US. It is prudent to confer with local counsel to fully identify local data transfer rules, privacy regulations and jurisdictional issues specific to that location before you deploy your collection team.

Filtering & Processing

After data collection is complete, legal teams are then faced with the challenge of filtering and processing the data. One thing the legal team should consider is character encoding, which allows a computer system to recognize and display English and other language characters. In addition, the legal team should look for an ediscovery provider who can pass along language identification information via a metadata field. Next, legal teams should evaluate what search options will be available with a data set that includes multilingual data and consult with an expert regarding search considerations and methodologies. Finally, legal teams should look for a service provider who can generate reports early in the process regarding language(s) identification, document count for each language and language breakdown by custodian.

Review & Production

Finally, multilingual data presents unique challenges in review and production. In terms of document review, a legal team has a few options: use native speaking attorneys to review documents in their native language, translate the documents into English for a review or use a hybrid of these methods. As a general rule, using a native speaker is more accurate than translation, but is also more expensive. Moreover, human translation is generally more accurate than computer translation, but likewise more costly.

When deciding on which review method to utilize, the prudent practitioner must consider the importance and the volume of the multilingual documents that need to be reviewed. Review by native speaking attorneys or human translation may not be practical to complete within discovery deadlines, financially feasible or necessary. On the other hand, in many jurisdictions the producing party has the burden of proving their privilege review was reasonable for purposes of assessing whether they waived attorney-client privilege in the event of inadvertent disclosure. Deliberately choosing the review method (native review, human translation or computer translation) for multilingual documents increases the defensibility of the review. In other words, the ability to articulate reasons why one review method was chosen over another strengthens the “reasonableness” argument.

Turning to production, several unique considerations arise in the context of multilingual ediscovery production. First, agreeing with opposing counsel early on regarding production language is crucial. A document may either be produced in its native language, in English or both. Moreover, parties should also agree on production format. Production format options for multilingual data are the same as for other electronically stored information: native format, a load file, an online repository or print. Last, parties should agree in advance on production ordering and sequencing. Multilingual documents can be organized for production solely by custodian irrespective of the document’s primary language, or can be further organized by both custodian an language. The old saying is true: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and the key to managing each of these production considerations is the same – agree in advance! The ideal time to discuss and reach an agreement on multilingual ediscovery production options is during a Rule 26(f) conference. Early party consensus on production language, format, and ordering and sequencing is crucial to developing your discovery plan, and may avoid costly disputes and potential re-dos later in litigation.

The bottom line: a legal team can avoid discovery disasters and leverage opportunities throughout the process by educating themselves about the process, planning ahead for the inevitable and partnering with an experienced e-discovery service provider that possesses the technological tools and expertise necessary to navigate the waters of multilingual ediscovery when involved in complex litigation, investigations or compliance matters.

Corporation Leverages One Online Review Tool to Effectively Manage Vast Amounts of ESI in Varying Matters

More than 2,000 data productions were made out of one Ontrack® Inview™ database to government authorities, opposing parties or other groups in related cases, resulting in increased control and better cost management for the corporation.

A corporate client and its outside counsel contacted Kroll Ontrack for assistance on a large complex securities investigation and several corresponding cases. The corporation knew that thousands of custodians would be involved in these matters and the size of the data set would grow to several terabytes. As such, they were looking for a service provider that could handle this sizable project and collaborate with the corporation and outside counsel on the most successful and cost-effective strategy for navigating these cases.

Read more