All posts tagged technology assisted review

Making Cents Out of Ediscovery Costs [Webinar]

Ediscovery does not have to be expensive. By utilizing the newest technologies, engaging in skillful preparation and obtaining knowledge of the process, you can keep ediscovery costs down. Kroll Ontrack’s latest webinar, Cost-Effective Ediscovery: How to Manage Expense and Reduce Waste provides useful tips and suggestions from three seasoned ediscovery specialists. These experts provide law firm, corporate and provider’s perspectives:

Don’t Be Late to Adopt New Technology

The myth that human review is the gold standard, as well as apprehension on how a court regards technology has led some practitioners to shy away from taking advantage of technological opportunities. However, as the webinar panelists discuss, predictive coding is an untapped resource for practitioners aiming to cut ediscovery costs.

Don’t Just Buy Ediscovery: Manage It

The webinar discusses that keeping ediscovery costs in check is not as simple as choosing the right provider. While setting a budget and considering fee schedules are important, this is not all that needs to be done to influence ediscovery costs. Panelists suggested:

  • Monitoring costs along the way; ask for regular updates
  • Communicating with corporate, law firm and provider representatives; lack of communication increases costs
  • Cooperating with opposing parties where possible; come to an agreement on things such as the number of custodians, production parameters and document review protocols

Don’t Miss the Opportunity to Get Proactive

Being prepared for ediscovery saves downstream costs. Webinar panelists highlighted the importance of ediscovery assessments and postmortem evaluations in pinpointing risks and identifying cost reduction recommendations across discovery response plans.

Watch this webinar, Cost-Effective Ediscovery: How to Manage Expense and Reduce Waste to learn even more about how to make budget-friendly ediscovery not just a possibility, but a reality.

TAR: Building a Better Playlist

TAR

“Sometimes it seems as if our Pandora and Netflix accounts know us better than we know ourselves, and can build a better play list…”

Brett M. Anders

Brett M. Anders, Jackson Lewis

In a recent article in Today’s General Counsel, Brett M. Anders of Jackson Lewis and my Kroll Ontrack colleague Rick Anderson, seek to debunk the misconception that human lawyers alone can build a better playlist when it comes to legal document review.

Human Review Is Not the Gold Standard

Practitioners shy away from predictive coding and technology assisted review (TAR) in part because of the myth that human review is superior to that done by a computer. However, this is not the case. Humans can be inaccurate: relevant documents can be missed and accuracy suffers. This position has been verified by studies and is generally accepted by the judiciary. The use of TAR has received much support from the courts in the cases where it has been an issue. However, at this point, no court has gone so far as to mandate the use of TAR.

Rick Anderson, Kroll Ontrack

Rick Anderson, Kroll Ontrack

Using Technology Assisted Review in Litigation

As of now, several judicial opinions have surfaced regarding the use of TAR. As noted above, the courts have supported it as a cost effective method for conducting discovery. The standard for discovery responses is “reasonable and proportional to the matter,” not perfection. Therefore, the accuracy offered by the use of TAR satisfies the standard for discovery production.

Speaking of proportionality, using TAR can place a party in a better position to make an argument about proportionality when litigation costs become too high. Because TAR prioritizes which documents are most likely to be relevant, a party who makes its way through the documents with the highest relevance has a basis to argue that additional discovery would not be “proportional to the needs of the case.”

Advantages of Using TAR

As discussed by Anders and Anderson, despite the apprehension to utilize this technology in the legal community, the fact remains that TAR has many advantages.

  • TAR costs a fraction of the expense it would take to review documents manually
  • TAR is typically faster than traditional document review, while also more accurate
  • Courts have approved the use of TAR; parties no longer need to worry about being the first to use this technology in a case
  • Courts are encouraging its use, while respecting the party’s wish to keep its seed set (used to train predictive coding technology) confidential

For more information on TAR, and how to utilize its benefits in litigation, be sure to read the full article, “Building a Better Play List with Technology-Assisted Review.”

Predictive Coding Technology: A Summer Blockbuster You Won’t Want to Miss

Predictive Coding Patent

What’s better than a summer blockbuster? Few things beat the heat better than an air-conditioned theater and a bucket of buttery popcorn while watching an engaging film.

Predictive Coding Patent Blockbuster:  Technology You Don’t Want to Miss

Kroll Ontrack has come out with its own “blockbuster” this summer: a predictive coding patent. Obtaining patents, like making blockbuster movies, takes years and ours was more than four years in the making. To accompany our patent, we have another mega-hit that deserves a second screening: Kroll Ontrack’s predictive coding guide. Our newly-patented technology, paired with our ever-relevant predictive coding guide, is a superhero team that the up-to-date ediscovery practitioner cannot do without.

2016 Summer Blockbusters: Movies You Don’t Want to Miss

Of course, there are other highly anticipated blockbusters arriving this summer. To start, the smart mouth turtles-turned-mutants of our youth are back in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows. In Independence Day: Resurgence the people of earth once again are in critical struggle against an alien invader (hopefully with a better spaceship design). The daffy ghost hunters have returned in revival of the ’80’s classic movie Ghostbusters, this time with an all-female cast and the same catchy theme song. Star Trek Beyond continues the story of the USS Enterprise crew in the newest installment in one of popular culture’s longest-running franchises. Finally, the list would not be complete without the newest villain-themed movie from the Batman franchise: Suicide Squad.

Live Long and TAR!

April Webinar: Got Data? Analytics to the Rescue!

Got Data Analytics to the Rescue

On April 19, 2016 join Kroll Ontrack experts Cathleen Peterson and Jim Sullivan, along with Kiriaki Tourikis from JP Morgan, as they discuss data analytics as both the lifeblood powering critical business operations and the kryptonite preventing the business from flexing its muscle. When investigations, litigation or compliance matters strike, organizations and their counsel that leverage analytics are more likely to win.

Register for the Data Analytics webinar today!

This session will feature hypothetical scenarios to explain the various analytics tools and how they fit into a case, data breach or investigation. At the end of the session, participants will understand how analytics can help:

  • Map the data collection and explore key points and related themes
  • Identify key players, timelines and communication patterns
  • Mine data for Personally Identifiable Information (PII)
  • Find redundant information and remove non-relevant, junk data

Plus Check Out These 2016 Webinar Recordings

Click the links below to watch Kroll Ontrack experts and panelists discuss the FRCP amendments and “dark data.”

January 2016: 2015 Year in Review: Ediscovery Case Law and Rules
February 2016: Turning on the Lights in a [Dark] Data Room

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.

Predictive Coding’s Ripple Effect

There’s always a new video going viral. The best ones are often talked about over the office water-cooler, making the participants overnight sensations. Consider 5-year-old Noah Ritter of Pennsylvania. He was merely interested in the super slide at his county fair, but when a local news crew asked him how the ride was, his adorable interview immediately went viral, garnering more than 3 million views on YouTube. That single video sent a ripple effect through the internet (and likely his personal life), and his interview was featured in articles and news outlets as far away as India and earned him a spot on Good Morning America. And now, for the crème de la crème, his name even graces this fine blog.

This ripple effect of popularity got me thinking about predictive coding (no surprise there). Predictive coding certainly made a splash when the first Federal court approved its use in litigation in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe. But since then, savvy practitioners have seen predictive coding as more than a discovery tool and have devised new uses for this powerful technology. The idea of incorporating machine learning and predictive coding into everyday business tasks is not far-fetched. This ripple effect of predictive coding can be seen in many areas, but there are three specific areas where the ripple effect will likely soon be a wave.

First, early use of predictive coding can be used to narrow the scope of discovery and refine the precision of collection. In addition, using predictive coding in this way can effect settlement. Incorporating predictive coding into EDA creates value that at least one court has already recognized.

Second, predictive coding can be used as a compliance tool.  Predictive coding is a natural way to assess and detect risk patterns, and stop them from developing further. Therefore, predictive coding software could be trained to comb through all of an organization’s information to detect potential risks and enable counsel to take immediate corrective action.

Finally, predictive coding can be used to combat the trials of information governance. Predictive coding can be and should be implemented in record retention policies. Predictive coding can identify which documents should be kept – and those that can be defensibly deleted. As more and more businesses become bogged down by big data, a smarter, more automated approach to record retention will be the future of information governance.

For more information concerning these “ripples” of predictive coding, check out Kroll Ontrack’s latest infographic, The Predictive Coding Ripple effect.

New Pulse Benchmarks Demonstrate Trends in Source Media and Deduplication

Don’t miss a beat; the new Pulse Benchmarks are here! These metrics can help practitioners keep up with trends in the ediscovery market and better plan and execute their ediscovery projects. If you’re new to ediscovery.com Pulse, here’s a quick overview: Kroll Ontrack’s Pulse Benchmarks present aggregated and trended data from over 4,000 matters over a five-year span (2008-2012) to identify trends and key changes in the ediscovery market. Our two new Benchmarks cover interesting trends in types of source media and deduplication review volumes. To see the two new Benchmarks, please download the report.

Types of source media fluctuate as ediscovery processing becomes standardized

Understanding what data goes into a project is important to getting to the information you need. Source data for ediscovery processing can be transmitted in many formats, but data from the Pulse Benchmarks has indicated a trend away from data being transmitted on CDs/DVDs and more data being transmitted via electronic file transfer (or FTPs).

Deduplication rates rise to reduce review volumes

Cutting time and costs is what technology assisted review (TAR) is all about, and one of the important tools used in TAR is deduplication. Deduplication is the process of comparing documents based on characteristics and removing duplicate records from the data set. This process can either be leveraged on the entire data set (project level deduplication) or a subset of data (such as custodian deduplication). This Pulse Benchmark indicates that project level deduplication selections are on the rise, marking a trend toward efforts to drive down review set volumes to cut time and costs.

What do you think about the trends outlined by the new Pulse Benchmarks? Why do you think source data is move away from CDs/DVDs and toward FTPs and why do you think deduplication is being used more and more on a project level basis? Where do you expect these numbers to be in the coming years? Let us know in the comments below!

Want to know more Pulse Benchmarks? Be sure to check out the full list on ediscovery.com/Pulse or view our previously recorded webinar, featuring ediscovery experts Eli Nelson and Wendy Butler Curtis.

The Latest ESI Report

ESI Report

In case you missed it, tune into the latest edition of the ESI Report at ediscovery.com which features two ediscovery experts discussing technology assisted review (TAR) and predictive coding. Recently, Cliff Nichols of Day Pitney and Tony Reichenberger of Kroll Ontrack joined the ESI Report for a conversation on a pay-to-play matter they worked on together, New Mexico State Investment Council v. Bland, 2014 WL 772860 (N.M. Dist. Ct. Feb. 12, 2014). Cliff and Tony executed an investigation leveraging TAR and predictive coding for the case.  This podcast includes an in-depth examination into the inner workings of the investigation.

Check out the podcast, which covers topics including the judge’s decision, the background of the case, the process by which Cliff and Tony decided to use and implement TAR and predictive coding in the investigation, and how they successfully used the technology. For an even deeper dive into the details of this case, be sure to also check out the case study  on this pay-to-play matter at ediscovery.com.

Predictive Coding Semantics: Step out of the Rain!

A few years ago, we wrote about predictive coding going mainstream; shortly thereafter we wrote a series debunking the most common myths about predictive coding; then, we even went so far as to break down predictive coding lifecycles (actually, we did that twice!), explained how to maximize training for machine learning, and taught a short lesson about the most commonly-used stats for evaluating your machine’s work. So, to make a long story short, we’re pretty big on using predictive coding as part of a search methodology, and we’re doing everything we can to demystify the process so that organizations can use this technology to increase their ediscovery efficiency and, in turn, save a significant amount of money. If you don’t believe me, check out one of our case studies illustrating the myriad benefits of employing predictive coding for search, analysis, and review.

According to Fullbright’s 9th Annual Litigation Trends Report in 2013, however, only 35% of the respondent companies indicated they were using some form of predictive coding. While that percentage is likely a significant increase from the pre-Da Silva Moore days where only a few ediscovery pioneers were brave enough to dive into their data with predictive coding, it still suggests some hesitancy on the part of practitioners.

Defining “Predictive Coding” and “Technology Assisted Review”

Whether the legal community’s hesitancy is related to cost, uncertainty, or a lack of matters they deem appropriate for predictive coding, it’s still a fairly opaque process, and it starts at one of the most basic levels: vernacular. The ediscovery community loves this technology… but it still hasn’t settled on what to call it. Whether it’s “predictive coding,” “technology assisted review,” or “computer assisted review,” there’s a smattering of terms floating around and little consensus about the preferred term.

As I stated before, Kroll Ontrack is committed to demystifying this process, and we’re drawing some lines to help clear up the semantic ambiguities related to predictive coding. It’s best to think of technology assisted review, or TAR, as an umbrella term that encompasses a variety of other advanced litigation technologies designed to help litigation teams work more efficiently and ease the burdens of standard linear review. Under this approach, predictive coding is just one prong of the larger array of complementary TAR and Early Data Assessment tools, such as near-dupe identification, email threading, visual analytics, workflow automation, and other reporting tools.

To see a visual of this approach, check out Defining Technology Assisted Review,” our latest infographic.

Top 5 Ediscovery Case Summaries – July 2013

Read the very latest ediscovery case law summaries

No Relevance of the Evidence? No Sanctions                                                   Cottle-Banks v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 2013 WL 2244333 (S.D. Cal. May 21, 2013).

Spoliation Sanctions Levied Against Damages Awarded in Rambus  Case                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              SK Hynix Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 2013 WL 1915865 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2013).

Special Master Analyzes “Overly Broad” Privilege Search Terms                                                                                                                                                   Dornoch Holdings Int’l, LLC v. Conagra Foods, Lamb Weston, Inc., 2013 WL 2384235 (D. Idaho May 1, 2013).

Sanctions Granted for Reckless Spoliation of Data                                     Pillay v. Millard Refrigerated Serv., Inc., 2013 WL 2251727 (N.D. Ill. May 22, 2013).

Minimal Court Oversight Required for Predictive Coding Protocol                                                                                                                                         Gordon v. Kaleida Health, 2013 WL 2250579 (W.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013).

 

 
css.php