Discovering the @Inc5000: A Look at 16 eDiscovery Enablers on the 2014 List

Based on a website review of this year’s Inc. 5000, the following list provides a quick, non-all inclusive reference of some of the eDiscovery enablers that have been included in the 2014 list. The sortable list includes the provider’s name, 2014 Inc. 5000 ranking (#), three year revenue growth (%), 2013 revenue ($) and industry categorization.

Roast-Turkey-with-Turkey-Gravy

Whales, Daubert, Rule 26(g) and the eDiscovery Turkey

Grossman and Cormack argue, attorneys should rely on scientific studies of the efficacy of CAR/TAR systems based on an analogy to the Daubert standard. They argue that evaluating the success of eDiscovery is burdensome and can be misleading. They liken the process of eDiscovery to that of roasting a turkey.

What Flavor of TAR is Right for You?

Terms like Predictive Coding or Machine Learning can involve an infinite number of combinations of technologies, sampling strategies, training iterations and much more.

The Drunkard

Drunks, DNA and Data Transfer Risk in eDiscovery

Data transfer risk may be minimized by automation and standards or increased by the requirement of human intervention. As automation and standards are still slowly maturing in the realm of electronic discovery technology, it seems important that legal professionals understand and properly consider the impact of potential data transfer risk as they plan, source, and conduct their electronic discovery activities.

The Legal Technology Future Horizons Report

International Legal Technology Association: “Released in May 2014, Legal Technology Future Horizons (LTFH) is a report that provides insights and practical ideas to inform the development of future business and IT strategies for law firms, law departments and legal technology vendors. The research, analysis and interpretation of the findings were undertaken by Fast Future Research and led by Rohit Talwar.

New Study Mired in the TAR Pit?

The hype cycle around Predictive Coding/Technology Assisted Review (PC/TAR) has focused around court acceptance and actual review cost savings. The last couple weeks have seen a bit of blogging kerfuffle over the conclusions, methods and implications of the new study by Gordon Cormack and Maura Grossman, “Evaluation of Machine-Learning Protocols for Technology-Assisted-Review in Electronic Discovery”. Pioneering analytics guru Herbert L. Roitblat of OrcaTec has published two blogs (first and second links) critical of the study and its conclusions. As much as I love a spirited debate and have my own history of ‘speaking truth’ in the public forum, I can’t help wondering if this tussle over Continuous Active Learning (CAL) vs. Simple Active Learning (SAL) has lost view of the forest while looking for the tallest tree in it.

How Not to Thwart the Progress of Technology-Assisted Review

Recent case law has shown strong support for the use of technology-assisted review (TAR): its accuracy and efficiency have been praised by judges and parties alike. However, despite her approval of the process as a “far more accurate means of producing responsive ESI in discovery … than human review or keyword searches,” Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen rejected the plaintiff’s use of the tool in Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Delaney after many months of delay in the production of requested electronic evidence.

Why Passive Learning is Better Than Active Learning for Predictive Coding in eDiscovery

By Herbert L. Roitblat, Ph.D. Let’s face it. “Active learning,” where the computer picks the training examples sounds cooler than “passive learning,” where the training examples are chosen randomly. Who wants to think that they are passively sitting by when they can be actively going out and finding responsive documents? But when you get past the feel-good aspects of the name, there are some real advantages to a system based on “passive” random sampling. Predictive coding uses machine learning algorithms to construct computational criteria for separating responsive from non-responsive documents. There are many protocols and algorithms that can be […]

eDiscovery Mergers, Acquisitions, and Investments in 2020

Since beginning to track the number of publicly highlighted merger, acquisition,...

Relativity Acquires VerQu

According to Relativity CEO Mike Gamson, "It's imperative that the legal...

eDiscovery Mergers, Acquisitions, and Investments in Q4 2020

From Nuix and DISCO to Exterro and AccessData, the following findings,...

DISCO Closes Funding Round of $100 Million

According to DISCO CEO Kiwi Camara, “Legaltech is booming now, and...

A New Era in eDiscovery? Framing Market Growth Through the Lens of Six Eras

There are many excellent resources for considering chronological and historiographical approaches...

An eDiscovery Market Size Mashup: 2020-2025 Worldwide Software and Services Overview

While the Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) for worldwide eDiscovery software...

Resetting the Baseline? eDiscovery Market Size Adjustments for 2020

An unanticipated pandemeconomic-driven retraction in eDiscovery spending during 2020 has resulted...

Home or Away? New eDiscovery Collection Market Sizing and Pricing Considerations

One of the key home (onsite) or away (remote) decisions that...

Five Great Reads on eDiscovery for December 2020

May the peace and joy of the holiday season be with...

Five Great Reads on eDiscovery for November 2020

From market sizing and cyber law to industry investments and customer...

Five Great Reads on eDiscovery for October 2020

From business confidence and captive ALSPs to digital republics and mass...

Five Great Reads on eDiscovery for September 2020

From cloud forensics and cyber defense to social media and surveys,...

It’s a Match! Focusing on the Total Cost of eDiscovery Review with ReviewRight Match

As a leader in remote legal document review, HaystackID provides clients...

From Proactive Detection to Data Breach Reviews: Sensitive Data Discovery and Extraction with Ascema

A steady rise in the number of sensitive data discovery requirements...

A Running List: Top 100+ eDiscovery Providers

Based on a compilation of research from analyst firms and industry...

The eDisclosure Systems Buyers Guide – 2020 Edition (Andrew Haslam)

Authored by industry expert Andrew Haslam, the eDisclosure Buyers Guide continues...

A Lifting of the Fog? Winter 2021 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey Results

This is the twenty-first quarterly eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey conducted by...

Orion Nebula
A Nebulous Outcome? The Winter 2021 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey

The eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey is a nonscientific quarterly survey designed...

High Five? An Aggregate Overview of Five Semi-Annual eDiscovery Pricing Surveys

As we are in the midst of a pandemic that has...

Balancing Relevance and Reality? Winter 2021 eDiscovery Pricing Survey Results

Based on the complexity of data and legal discovery, it is...