eDJ Contributor: Mikki Tomlinson
Posts by Mikki Tomlinson
hide story details [-]
- April 30th
-
A Review of the iCONECT Global Summit 2012 – Day One
I was pleased to participate in day one of iCONECT’s Global Summit in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida last week. The Summit, designed for iConect’s clients and partners, was well done and very educational. The program consisted of sessions featuring iCONECT’s Xera product, as well as keynotes, presentations and panels on hot eDiscovery topics led by industry experts. As one of the early (1999-ish) users of iCONECT, I am excited to see how the product has evolved over the years. It is a challenge for early-to-market software to maintain the “latest and greatest” market perception that consumers are looking for. iCONECT appears to be working diligently to stay fresh, relevant and focused on customer needs as is demonstrated by its launch of iPad review capabilities and an increasingly intuitive user interface. Further, the iCONECT roadmap introduces advanced analytic capabilities. iCONECT designed its Summit [...]
posted at 11:39am on Apr 30th
- April 24th
-
Are we Pricing Ourselves Out of Business?
“Are we Pricing Ourselves Out of Business?” That was the first thing I heard when I answered an early morning phone call last week. An industry veteran and long-time friend was on the other end of the line. We went on to have a very interesting conversation that I think is important to open up to the general eDiscovery public. (For purposes of this blog, I will maintain my friend’s anonymity and hereinafter refer to him as “Vendor Veteran”.) This is not the first time we have blogged about pricing on the eDiscovery Journal. Most recently Jason Velasco and Sarah Hankins published blogs on the topic, both drawing comments from readers. Cost and pricing models have been a hot topic since Jason’s early “glory days” of provider collection and processing. Pricing clearly remains a relevant topic in eDiscovery. As Jason, Sarah [...]
posted at 9:00am on Apr 24th
- March 21st
-
Technology-Assisted Review: The Need for Market Definition and Where We Stand Today
Buzz about new technologies always precedes adoption. And one of the outcomes of “technology buzz” is development of the market definition to its consumers. The market message and definition of Predictive Coding or Technology Assisted Review (“TAR”) is, without a doubt, still evolving and there is certainly a plethora of buzz. The simple fact that we, as an industry, cannot agree on a general term for “it” is evidence enough that there are still a lot of untraveled roads that remain to be mapped. “Predictive coding” was the first label that took hold as a result of the marketing efforts of an industry leader. In his February 24, 2012 opinion in the Da Silva Moore, et al. vs. Publicis Groupe, et al. case, The Honorable Andrew J. Peck referred to it as “Computer Assisted Review”. In the yet to be [...]
posted at 11:07am on Mar 21st
- February 24th
-
The Great Cooperation Debate
The commentary to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure directs parties to discuss issues related to ESI. In 2008 the Sedona Conference® published the Cooperation Proclamation . Since that time, more than 100 members of the judiciary – both at the federal and state court levels – have formally endorsed the Cooperation Proclamation. There have been multiple articles and opinions addressing the topic of cooperation in eDiscovery. And, if you poll the legal industry about whether they believe cooperation in eDiscovery is a must-do practice, I would bet the yes answers would outnumber the no answers. Yet, I question whether the legal industry has truly achieved a state of cooperation in eDiscovery disputes more often than not. This topic is near and dear to my heart and I am eager to talk about it any chance I [...]
posted at 8:00am on Feb 24th
- February 15th
-
The Honorable Andrew J. Peck on the Record with Predictive Coding: Early Headlines Get it Wrong!
As hinted to be forthcoming during the LTNY Man vs. Machine: The Promise/Challenge of Predictive Coding & Other Disruptive Technologies session, The Honorable Andrew J. Peck, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York, is now on record on the topic of Predictive Coding – Technology Assisted Review (“PC-TAR”) in the Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe et al. case. Word of the ruling traveled quickly throughout the eDiscovery blogosphere early yesterday. But the headlines got it wrong! Early reports claimed that Judge Peck ordered the use of PC-TAR. Unfortunately, it appears that claim stuck as evidenced by the many bloggers that have reported the same information. But it is wrong! The ruling is in no way a mandate or an order to use PC-TAR. The parties in the Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe et al. [...]
posted at 8:55am on Feb 15th
- February 10th
-
An Interview with The Honorable Andrew J. Peck – Part Two
It has been stated over and over in discussions around PC-TAR, that it is imperative to have a well-defined workflow that includes solid processes for purposes of defensibility (e.g., sampling, documentation). In Part One I pointed out that we had these same conversations around acceptable, defensible practices when using key terms and all human review. Yet, there are still a number of practitioners that are not making use of solid, defensible practices. For example, I continue to see attorneys blindly selecting key terms and proceed directly to process, review, and production with no sampling and minimal documentation along the way. My question, then, remains whether the discussions surrounding PC-TAR will prompt practitioners to employ better practices no matter what method of collection/search/review is. Or, will we maintain the status quo: those that understand the need for and importance of solid processes and project management, and those that don’t?
posted at 1:49pm on Feb 10th
- February 2nd
-
An Interview with The Honorable Andrew J. Peck – Part One
The Honorable Andrew J. Peck, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York, graciously allowed me to interview him after the LTNY Man vs. Machine: The Promise/Challenge of Predictive Coding & Other Disruptive Technologies session in which he participated as a panelist. Judge Peck shared the panel with industry luminaries Maura Grossman and Ralph Losey, and moderator Dean Gonsowski. Overall, the session was excellent – very educational, and well organized. When I reached out to Judge Peck last week to request the interview, my intention was to write a review of the session. I prepared questions and took fast and furious notes during the session. However, between the time the session was over and the time we sat down for a bite to eat and proceed with the interview, I realized that a session review is not [...]
posted at 6:04pm on Feb 2nd
- January 18th
-
The Delicate Balance Between E-Discovery And Business Requirements
One of the greatest challenges of implementing and maintaining legal hold and discovery response processes in a corporate environment is balancing those requirements with the needs and goals of the IT department. While we typically see the dichotomy between Legal and IT, there are other key stakeholders that cannot be left out of the mix: Compliance, Records Management and, of course, the Business Client.
In order to strike the balance (or at least start moving in that direction) between competing interests, each of these stakeholders must be able to understand the goals, mission, requirements, and needs of the others. To point out the obvious – this requires communication. The problem here is that Legal, Records, Compliance, and IT do not speak the same language. Because every organization is unique, culture is another critical component that cannot be ignored. While the cultural considerations and communication difficulties between the stakeholders may not necessarily be contentious, they can be frustrating and challenging. Luckily, there are ways to work through the cultural and language barriers, such as using drawings/visuals, explaining things in simple terms, and the use of translators.
posted at 10:35am on Jan 18th
- January 9th
-
In Search of the Industry Standard
Have you ever received a detailed project estimate from a service provider and wondered how they came up with it? I have. Unless you provided them your client specific data assumptions, they likely used “industry standards” to fill in the blanks. Hmmm. Where did these industry standards come from and how accurate are they?
posted at 10:30am on Jan 9th
- January 3rd
-
Developing an In-House eDiscovery Process: Getting Started
The impact of discovery in this era of electronic information explosion has greatly affected corporations that are full-time litigants. These effects go all the way to the core of their businesses in terms of cost, risk, and management of information. The resulting position for organizations has become reactive, and discovery costs have spiraled out of control. Over the last several years there has been a good deal of discussion on the value of bringing eDiscovery processes in-house – often referred to as “litigation readiness.” The goal of developing an in-house eDiscovery program is to manage it as a business process, thus gaining efficiency and cost control.
posted at 1:58pm on Jan 3rd