As the size of document collections continue to explode, finding the evidence needle in the ESI haystack is more challenging than ever. Understanding the latest tools, indexing techniques, and features associated with advanced eDiscovery keyword search will allow you to conduct a highly effective review while still delivering your production on time.
Published on November 10, 2014, the new Gartner Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Information Archiving (G00262936) provides information technology and business professionals with information and insight into solutions available to meet compliance and eDiscovery challenges while reducing primary storage costs.
“Free eDiscovery Processing” sounds too good to be true. Until now, you may have spent many hundreds of dollars per GB to process native documents like Outlook Email and Microsoft Office files into paginated reviewable formats like TIFF or PDF. So how can those charges simply disappear? The revolutionary answer lies with Lexbe’s secure, scalable cloud technology.
Until a few years ago, there was basically no effort expended to measure the efficacy of eDiscovery. As computer-assisted review and other technologies became more widespread, an interest in measurement grew, in large part to convince a skeptical audience that these technologies actually worked. Now, I fear, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction and it seems that measurement has taken over the agenda.
In a sea of 600+ e-discovery providers in the US alone, trying to find the right vendor to meet and fulfill your requirements is difficult. Like purchasing a car, you have a choice of vendors that range from local, to regional and national providers. Some that use their own technologies, others that use off-the-shelf products and a few others that provide traditional processing and hosting services spawned from the paper world.
Whether producing in Native, TIFF, PDF, or a blended format, discovery productions are fraught with potential challenges and obstacles that can foil your ability to meet deadlines and satisfy discovery requirements. Here we present 10 of the most common mistakes litigation professionals can encounter, as well as best practices to avoid them.
The Coalition of Technology Resources for Lawyers (CTRL), an industry forum focusing on the practical application of technology in the legal field, announced the release of the first public database of predictive coding case law (http://www.ctrlinitiative.com/wiki/resource/). CTRL has collected and organized every published opinion that discusses predictive coding in the eDiscovery process, ranging from case management orders requiring counsel to consider predictive coding workflows to detailed opinions discussing advanced issues like the production of seed sets.
An overview of Technology-Assisted Review and Predictive Coding related case law, reports and articles as compiled by Robert Brownstone of Fenwick & West.
91% of firms engaged in litigation continue to use TIFFs as a favored review format. On the one hand, TIFFs are a standardized, reviewable format that litigation professionals are comfortable with. On the other, TIFF processing requires tremendous computing resources and, as a result, has traditionally been slow and expensive. As the size of collections continue to explode, there is additional pressure to process more native documents into TIFF – and fast.
Emails and their attachments represent an increasingly significant portion of ESI (Electronically Stored Information) collections and for good reason, too. The hundreds of billions of emails that are sent daily paint a comprehensive picture of our personal and professional lives. It’s no wonder that litigators must thoroughly and effectively review these collections for key evidence. Most often, the “smoking guns” are hiding in Outlook .msg files and their attachments. But the peculiarities of email format can make this key evidence difficult to find, defensibly collect, process, review, search, and produce without proper knowledge and tools.