Posts Tagged ‘processing’
hide story details [-]
- January 24th
-
Planet Data Receives SSAE 16 Certification
Certification Highlights Planet Data’s Dedication to the Security of Client Information
posted at 1:16pm on Jan 24th
- January 9th
-
Planet Data to Demonstrate New Exego3 Platform at LegalTech® New York 2012
Planet Data will present the newly launched proprietary early cost assessment eDiscovery platform, Exego3.
posted at 1:49pm on Jan 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
- December 14th
-
So let’s get to the heart of this Predictive Coding – Technology Assisted Review thing
One recurring topic that keeps popping up was Predictive Coding, or Technology Assisted Review (we’ll use the defined term “PC-TAR” to avoid controversy from this point on). We know that using PC-TAR will help save money in the overall eDiscovery process. Albert Barsocchini recently did an article on “Ediscovery Production Without Review” last week and quoted an attorney at a major law firm that said they are producing documents without any reviewing any documents in a linear review process. This immediately raised the mental flag in my head as this was the first that I’ve heard of someone going straight to production using PC-TAR technology without first doing a human review of the responsive documents.
posted at 3:13pm on Dec 14th
- December 13th
-
Is Preservation “In Place” Technology the Panacea to the Preservation Headache?
I have spent countless hours over the last 5 years searching for the cure to many of my e-discovery ills: technology that will hold data in place for purposes of complying with preservation obligations in litigation. I am not referring to sending legal hold notices to custodians of data or self-collection. I am referring to actually locking down data…In a diverse technology environment…Without interrupting the business…And while we’re at it, can we apply retention policies? Based on my own experience and on multiple discussions with in-house practitioners, I strongly believe in-place preservation would take many of the headaches out of the preservation burdens faced by serial corporate litigants. Last week at the The Exchange event in Los Angeles Laura Kibbe, a thought leader in the industry, brought the topic up in one of the sessions. While acknowledging that we simply aren’t there [...]
posted at 4:21pm on Dec 13th
- November 22nd
-
E-Discovery: Does it need to be so expensive?
E-Discovery: Does it need to be so expensive?
posted at 12:04pm on Nov 22nd
- November 17th
-
Say Goodbye to Processing Fees?
E-discovery customers are mad as hell and wont take it anymore. The days of charging hefty per GB processing fees for what is generally perceived as an automated process may be over. Cracks in the pricing dike are evident as more and more vendors waive processing fees. They justify these fees because processing is high risk and reporting exception can be problematic. To minimize errors, proper project management is critical to a defensible production. Vendors are in the business to make a profit and not give away professional services for free. As corporate legal and law firms become more ediscovery business savvy, pricing will continue to trend downward and vendors will become more creative in pricing their services. This is healthy for an industry that is changing as quickly as the electronic evidence that drives it. See Evan Koblentz’s commentary on this topic.
posted at 10:32am on Nov 17th
- November 13th
-
Lost Metadata
As discussed in Truth About Processing Speed, there are many variables that affect processing speed and performance. One of the industries’ little secrets is omitting or reducing — either intentionally or unintentionally — the amount of meta data fields that will be ingested for processing. The less metadata ingested, the less time it takes to process, index and view the electronically stored information. Currently, there are more than 80,000 identified reasonably accessible metadata fields available for capture. Clearly, most of those fields are irrelevant to ediscovery, but it is important to be aware of what is reasonably accessible and why those fields are excluded. Although the number of known metadata fields is surprisingly large, it is growing as new file types are added to the mix. Most vendors predefine a small set of metadata fields instead of capturing all volatile metadata found within native files. When new metadata fields are discovered, best practices should require that they be given a unique ID for cataloging and added to a progressive metadata library. It is settled law that metadata associated with computer files is discoverable ESI. Therefore, to have a defensible process, lawyers should always ask vendors before processing, what metadata fields they capture, what may be left behind, and why.
posted at 4:42pm on Nov 13th
- October 31st
-
ESI Data Processing: Why Should Attorneys Care?
Of the concepts guaranteed to glaze the eyes of the most attentive, “data processing” is certainly near the top of the list. Even attorneys that managed to stay awake through such law school gems as Secured Transactions and Estate Planning may struggle with data processing. Part of the problem is, at first blush, data processing appears more technical than legal. The prevalence of this myth is unfortunate and the risks to attorneys that subscribe to it are substantial. This blog post is not intended to be a deep dive into the world of data processing; including the issue of whether …
[ CONTINUE READING → ]
posted at 5:08pm on Oct 31st
-
The Truth About Processing Speed
Vendors like to brag about being “fast” at processing in electronic discovery. However, when you look behind the speed claims, it is clear that the devil is in the details. Most vendors tell you how fast they can ingest/import documents, but fail to mention such things as how long it takes to export documents for analysis and review and all the meta data that may be left behind. Here are some questions to ask when the need for speed is critical to your production. Does the vendor extract and preserve [all] meta data during import? Some leave important meta data behind in order not to sacrifice ingestion speed. When a text layer (Images, vector graphic files, etc.) is not found during import, is the file OCR’d during import to extract text that would otherwise be left behind? Does the vendor de-dupe via a distributed process or do they use a single machine and require the entire data set to be loaded into one window for processing? Does the vendor parallel process the data across several processors and machines? Just because a vendor says that the application is multi-threaded, does not mean it’s scalable. Often a vendor completes processing during export to save time during import. For example, linking parents/children/families, TIFFing and de-dupping is often done during export to save time and possibly money on import. Does speed really matter in your case or can you wait an extra day? Why does it matter whether or not you TIFF, DeNIST, de-dupp, etc., during import? The answer depends on what you intend to do with the data. For example, you want to de-dupe on import if you intend to make the data immediately available for early case assessment (ECA). Additionally, vendors typically don’t TIFF until the very end when the data has been culled down to a subset deemed relevant. However, most ECA tools that tiff during export, will need to move the data from processing, to ECA, and then back into a processing tool to get decent TIFFs on extract. I personally like a vendor that does a thorough job during import. Clearly, processing is a technical dance. For that reason it is always a good idea to use an independent consultant who can navigate these important questions and make the right decision depending on the case.
posted at 3:26pm on Oct 31st