There are some interesting observations about predictive coding’s “failure to launch”.Here are two recommendations that mitigate most if not all of the impediments to technology-enabled solutions: inordinate cost and unsatisfactory performance.
Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Facebook EmailBy Greg Buckles Extract: So here are my Top Ten Reasons Why NOT [To Use] PC-TAR: Perception that PC-TAR costs front load the discovery cost for…
Bad things tend to happen when lawyers delegate e-discovery responsibility to their clients. As all informed lawyers know, lawyers have a duty to actively supervise their client’s preservation. They cannot just turn a blind eye; just send out written notices and forget it. Lawyers have an even higher duty to manage discovery, including search and production of electronic evidence. They cannot just turn e-discovery over to a client and then sign the response to the request for production. The only possible exception proves the rule. If a client has in-house legal counsel, and if they appear of record in the case, and if the in-house counsel signs the discovery response, then, and only then, is outside counsel (somewhat) off the hook. Then they can lay back, a little bit, but, trust me, this almost never happens.
Believe it or not, it has been four years ago this past Saturday since we launched the eDiscovery Daily blog!
When we launched nearly four years ago on September 20, 2010, our goal was to be a daily resource for eDiscovery news and analysis. Now, we’ve done so for four years. We’ve lasted as long as many presidential administrations (and probably worked WAY more days). We hit over 300,000 visits to the site in May and, earlier this month published our 1,000th post! And, every post we have published is still available on the site for your reference, which has made eDiscovery Daily into quite a knowledgebase! We’re quite proud of that.
I do not normally want to high five Federal judges, but Judge Ronald Buch, a Tax Judge in Texas, sure deserved one after his Dynamo Holdings opinion.
The Lexbe eDiscovery Processing System (LEPS) converted the entire 53 GBs of the EDRM Enron Dataset, with 5 million page equivalents, into industry-standard TIFF images in only 5.3 hours. To accomplish this task in this short time, LEPS programmatically deployed and utilized over 60 parallel server instances, and maintained a sustained throughput rate of 240 GBs/day (23 Million pages/day) for Native to TIFF processing.
eDiscovery workload, the use of predictive coding and projected rate of adoption of technically assisted review are all up significantly, according to a new report by recruiting and staffing firm The Cowen Group.
Some of the most vicious fights occur when families get together for the Holidays. Maybe there’s something in the turkey that brings it out. Grossman and Cormack have responded to my blog posts about their articles with a good deal of vitriol, but without addressing the fundamental questions I raised.
There has been some debate recently about the value of the “eRecall” method compared to the “Direct Recall” method for estimating the recall achieved with technology-assisted review. This article shows why eRecall requires sampling and reviewing just as many documents as the direct method if you want to achieve the same level of certainty in the result.
It is now widely recognized that predictive coding can, in fact, considerably reduce the cost and effort of eDiscovery and increase its accuracy. The pundits have turned lately to discussions of how predictive coding can “best” be implemented. But the technology used is only one part of the equation that determines the ultimate cost and accuracy of predictive coding. The human factor remains important as well.