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 […]
The Court concludes, because of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s felicitous access to electronically stored information, that Plaintiffs must provide a pretrial statement setting forth the facts they now have, and Defendants must subsequently reciprocate. Ignoring the capabilities which ESI allows the parties to search for and produce factual information in a case of this nature is like pretending businesses still communicate by smoke signals.
When EDRM , the organization that created the Electronic Discovery Reference Model , launched its Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM) I wondered how long it would take for this day to come. The wait is over. Information governance (IG) has taken its place on the EDRM. In this post I will take a look at the changes and consider whether they have gone too far, have got it just right, or maybe have a little room for more tweaks.
I don’t usually comment on competitors’ claims, but I thought that I needed to address some potentially serious misunderstandings that could come out of Cormack and Grossman’s latest article, “ Evaluation of Machine-Learning Protocols for Technology-Assisted Review in Electronic Discovery .” Although they find in this paper that an active learning process is superior to random sampling, it would be a mistake to think their conclusions would apply to all random sampling predictive coding regimens.
Cybersecurity is job number one for all litigation attorneys who handle confidential computer data. That’s because electronically stored information (ESI) held by law firms is now subject to frequent attack by criminal hackers. They have figured out that attorneys store valuable data of their clients in law firm computers. So when hackers cannot get at a company’s data directly, usually because it is too well defended, they try to get to it through their law firms.
This is Part Two in a three-part article entitled, “Does the Uncritical Acceptance by Courts of Unsupported and Potentially Erroneous Technology Assisted Review Assertions Frustrate the Objectives of Discovery? 1 .” The article does not argue that traditional manual discovery is generally the most desirable method, or that technology-assisted review should be discarded. Manual review is often inefficient, even prohibitive, from a cost standpoint. Rather, the article challenges current judicial assessments and industry practices as lacking in either factual support or accurate conclusions, and asserts that judicial review of predictive coding should be structured differently than it currently is […]
One of the most frequently discussed trends in this year’s annual thought leader interviews that we conducted was the application of analytics (including predictive analytics) to Information Governance. A recent report published in the Richmond Journal of Law & Technology addresses how analytics can be used to optimize Information Governance. Written by Bennett B. Borden & Jason R. Baron (who was one of our thought leaders discussing that very topic), Finding the Signal in the Noise: Information Governance, Analytics, and the Future of Legal Practice , 20 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 7 (2014) is written for those who are […]
A season appropriate reposting of how vendors can “give” as a means of “thanking” clients.
In this case, the court found that the duty to preserve arose after the at-issue information was destroyed in accordance with Defendant’s document retention policies and that an adverse inference was not warranted. Considering the proper standard to employ when assessing when the duty to preserve is triggered, the court concluded that “the duty to preserve is triggered only when a litigant knew or should have known that litigation was imminent (at least in the Seventh Circuit).”
While there has not yet been a definitive higher court case related to the use of predictive coding or computer-assisted review as an appropriate method for culling electronic data in discovery, several courts have weighed in on the side of the technology’s time and cost savings in reducing the sheer number of documents attorneys must review before producing them to the opposing party. This paper, authored by New York attorney Michael Pitch of TrustPoint International, contains a summary of nine major cases in which judges have held hearings on the use of predictive coding.