Extract from article by Kelly Twigger
Back in May, I wrote about the litigation between two of the largest ediscovery service providers — DTI and LDiscovery — pending in federal court before Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York. My article highlighted some fairly egregious facts alleged in the complaint, in which DTI accused LDiscovery and four salespeople from Epiq (the company that DTI acquired in fall 2016) of conspiring to steal trade secrets and solicit their customers in violation of various provisions of their employment agreements. The complaint painted a picture of calculated deception and conspiracy on the part of LDiscovery’s CEO and the salesmen.
The latest evidence in the case suggests those alleged facts are not close to the truth.
Additional Reading:
A non-comprehensive graphical depiction that may be helpful in considering and connecting the dots during planning, forecasting, and sharing activities regarding the discipline of eDiscovery.
This new legal technology salary mashup contains general salary data points gathered from an aggregation of publicly available technology and legal technology industry research, reports, and anecdotal evidence.
Taken from a combination of public market sizing estimations as shared in leading electronic discovery reports, publications and posts over time, the following eDiscovery Market Size Mashup shares general worldwide market sizing considerations for software and services in the electronic discovery market for the years between 2017 and 2022.
In navigating the glittering generalities presented by individuals and organizations seeking to influence eDiscovery software selection decisions, remember that there may be many right choices for your specific needs. Considering those choices through the lens of security, capability, complexity, and cost may help ensure that you not only make the right choice but make the best choice for your needs.
Packaged services may help legal technology providers bridge the gap between traditional hourly consulting offerings and fully managed services. They may also provide a strong opportunity to create additional sales entry points and potential new revenue streams by making access to current consulting offerings easier to understand, easier to evaluate, and easier to purchase.
Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Google+ Email A post shared by Rob Robinson (@complexdiscovery) on May 21, 2018 at 3:39pm PDT Extract of Creative Commons Content from the EDRM EDRM and the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law are seeking comments from the bench, bar, and public on a preliminary draft of Technology Assisted Review (TAR) Guidelines. Nearly 50 volunteer lawyers, […]
During my [Bill Dimm] presentation at the NorCal eDiscovery & IG Retreat, I challenged the audience to create keyword searches that would work better than technology-assisted review (predictive coding) for two topics. Half of the room was tasked with finding articles about biology (science-oriented articles, excluding medical treatment) and the other half searched for articles about current law (excluding proposed laws or politics). TAR beat keyword search across the board for both tasks.
Ralph Losey’s TAR Course has a new class, the Seventeenth Class: Another “Player’s View” of the Workflow. Several other parts of the course have also been updated and edited. The TAR course now has eighteen classes.
With recent eDiscovery provider announcements that highlight the use of the terms “Continuous Active Learning” and “CAL”, provided below is a quick review and current update on Recommind’s (Recommind, Inc.) opposition to the trademark/service mark application by Maura Grossman and Gordan V. Cormack for trademarking CONTINUOUS ACTIVE LEARNING and CAL.
Special Master Maura Grossman recently issued an Order crafting a new validation protocol In Re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, (Jan. 3, 2018), which is currently pending in the Northern District of Illinois.
So where do you stand on GDPR preparedness? Join HaystackID and a panel of privacy, compliance, and eDiscovery experts to learn more about the GDPR and how you can avoid the problems and pain of unpreparedness.
The use of Technology Assisted Review (TAR) has been accepted in the courts for several years, but most lawyers still don’t use it and many still don’t know what it is or how it works. Why not? Are the terms TAR and predictive coding synonymous or are there other forms of TAR that can also facilitate review? This CLE-approved webcast session will discuss what TAR really is, when it may be appropriate to consider for your case, what challenges can impact the use of TAR and how to get started.
This CLE-approved webcast session takes a look at the history of the development of standards and highlights specific issues of importance regarding eDiscovery in criminal matters.
This CLE-approved webcast session will cover how data privacy requirements have evolved over time, the parameters associated with the GDPR, what they mean to your organization and what steps your organization needs to take to ensure compliance with the GDPR.
This CLE-approved webcast covers 2017 case law decisions covered by the eDiscovery Daily blog and what the legal profession can learn from those rulings.
Internet guru and Kleiner Perkins investor Mary Meeker just unveiled her Internet Trends report for 2017 at the Code Conference...