Originally posted on September 28, 2012
I recently attended the 57th annual ARMA conference in Chicago on September 23 – 25th. I have always had a soft spot in my heart for information governance because of the close relationship between eDiscovery and records management. They both seek to intelligently mine an organization’s data and put it into a meaningful structure. They also face similar challenges of overcoming the sheer massive volumes of information.
A big difference between the two is that records management is critical to an organization’s ability to manage their business through transactions, mergers, turnovers, and also dispute situations like litigation. Once litigation occurs, records managers are often included in the process to help figure out where the potentially responsive ESI resides. As a result, litigation is really a subset of the role of records management within a company. This is a topic I recently covered on an ESIBytes podcast called “Information Governance Tips Which Benefit E-Discovery,” with a collection of lawyers and technologists.
Originally posted on August 27, 2012
As I read some of the commentary I have seen posted on Kleen Products, I felt compelled to weigh in as an industry participant closely involved with predictive coding. Kleen Products was a useful case for a number of reasons.
First the case showed us that a party which educated themselves on information retrieval was willing to go into court and argue that parties should have to use technology to improve the search and retrieval of responsive ESI. Having witnessed some of the hearings first hand, I believe the plaintiffs were genuine in their desire to have the defendants move beyond keyword searching because they were and probably still are deeply concerned that they will have a hard time finding what they need from key word and Boolean searches supplemented with some concept searches. The reality is it was a tremendous burden faced by the Kleen Products plaintiffs to argue that the defendants in Kleen Products should have done something different from what lawyers have traditionally done with key words, especially when these defendants had already reviewed millions of documents after key word searching.
Originally posted on July 2, 2013
One of the most interesting predictive coding cases going on right now is In Re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation (United States District Court of Louisiana MDL No. 6:11-md-2299). The complexion of the case recently changed as the parties who originally agreed to use predictive coding (and in an innovative twist to even train the predictive coding software together) are now fighting over what the results mean. According to court documents filed by both parties (all available on the PACER website), the cooperation experiment is over and both sides are unable to find common ground to resolve their dispute over how next to proceed with the predictive coding results (see Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Documents (“the Defendants’ Brief”) and the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Memorandum to Support (the “Plaintiffs Brief”)). Read More
Originally posted on April 30, 2013
On April 19th, 60 invited delegates convened on Washington, DC with the Federal Rules Committee to discuss Technology Assisted Review. The object of the meeting was to have the delegates give their perspectives on whether the Rules currently being readied for public comment should incorporate changes that take into account the unique needs of TAR. My overall conclusion is that the Duke Conference was an outstanding event and it went along way to show that attorneys need more transparency when using TAR or it becomes very hard for parties to effectively cooperate. Read More