eDJ Migrated

Centralized control of information is at the heart of information governance. In many ways, though, centralization runs counter to the realities of the working world where information must be distributed globally across a variety of devices and applications. The amount of information we create is overwhelming and the velocity with which that information moves increases daily. To think that an organization can find one system in which to manage all its information is preposterous.

Clients often bring up the issue of creating a business case for eDiscovery because it’s such a difficult activity. Despite the fact that solutions on the market can help save a lot of money, it’s hard to justify spending hundreds of thousands of dollars upfront to address eDiscovery costs. It shouldn’t be as hard as it is, but such is the grim reality in the complex world of corporate eDiscovery. I believe that much of the difficulty comes from the lack of “ownership” for eDiscovery.

We’ve been writing about the issue of “ownership” in eDiscovery lately and it’s prompting some good discussions. Earlier posts about general ownership of eDiscovery and ownership of document review have led to various debates such how to best implement eDiscovery processes and solutions within corporations and the potential change of business models for law firms. Only one thing is clear – that there is little clarity in our market. These debates will continue to rage for near-term because most organizations are still fairly low on the eDiscovery learning curve.

In early 2010, I said it would be the year of Early Case Assessment (ECA). Thankfully, the eDiscovery world was about much more than ECA; this was the year that corporations took a meaningful step up the maturity ladder. This is not to say that there isn’t work to be done. On the contrary – the first movement up the learning curve was a baby step, but a step in the right direction nonetheless.

Searching for a single term within a document is pretty black or white. It is either present or not. When you step up to searching based on phrases, proximity terms, concepts and compound term clusters things start to get a bit less absolute. Yet, simple lists of terms are generally either overly broad or are missing relevant ESI. The simplest search index does not store information about the position(s) of terms within a document. Modern search indexes such as Lucene, FAST, IDOL and others rely on term position and other information to derive clusters of two or more related terms (concepts) and relevance weighting factors. During a recent briefing call with Mike Wade, CTO of Planet Data, we delved into some of the challenges that Planet Data faced expanding their Exego Early Cost Assessment platform to support concept search and ECA workflow. What really caught my attention was the ability to extract two separate versions of the text from documents, both the raw unformatted text AND the rendered view. Alternatively, they have developed a merged rendering that embeds the extracted object text in-line with the viewed text.

Now that my full research paper is complete and available, I wanted to share some highlights. Just yesterday I had another GC client tell me that their IT department wanted to rely on their upcoming upgrade to Exchange 2010 to respond to discovery requests. Microsoft has added some good new features, but I would not want to try to defend their use against any kind of adverse scrutiny. So let’s talk about the new ‘Discovery Search’ interface. First and foremost, this is basically the old administrative multi-mailbox search within the OutlookWebApp. The search name and criteria are written to a database table along with the user, date, size estimate and some keyword statistics. The last is a good feature that was undoubtably driven by a customer request to support keyword negotiations. Here is a look at the landing page:

Keeping track of eDiscovery decisions and untangling their relative scope, merit and potential applicability is not easy, even with eDiscoveryJournal’s search engines watching the web. Gibson Dunn has published their 2010 Year-End Electronic Discovery and Information Law Update covering 323 decisions, up over 60% from the 2009 eDiscovery decisions (200 cases). Besides calling out the report as a good resource, I wanted to comment on some of the statistics and specific cases.

Legal Tech NY 2011 is less than a week away. It just so happens that we launched eDJ at LTNY 2010, so we have been working hard on some new tools. We have completely rewritten my old eDiscovery Application Matrix and transformed it into the eDJ Tech Matrix. The most noticeable immediate change is our new capability to compare individual applications or features across entire company offerings. The eDiscovery market is still relatively young and it is dominated by start-ups with a single software offering. However, we have seen acquisitions by global technology companies such as Autonomy, EMC, Iron Mountain and IBM. That means you might want to see how an individual product compares AND then see all the features offered by a company. Up till this point, the roughly 100 applications in the Tech Matrix had been submitted exclusively by users and the providers.

In some ways I feel like I missed out on parts of Legal Tech NY 2011. My focus this year was to fit in as many roadmap briefings as possible. The sheer scale and audience focus of LTNY has forced providers to plan major product releases and announcements around the show. Product managers would ask me, “Didn’t you see our press release?” Even if I saw it, there were so many in the eDJ search queue that I could not remember them all. So instead of keynotes, sessions, panels or even the exhibition floor, I spent virtually all of my time hearing about the very latest products, features and where the providers think that eDisovery is going this year. With so many briefings, I am going to stick to short summaries and high points. There were quite a few providers who did not have a coherent message or any new functionality significant enough to mention. On with the fun.

Continuing my high level take-aways from my roadmap briefings at LegalTech NY 2011. Predictive coding was one of the hot topics at this show, but it seemed to mean something different to every provider. There is enough confusion around the issue to merit a solid research topic for eDJ in the upcoming months. I know that The eDiscovery Institute is looking to do a comparative research project on predictive coding in 2011-2012, so we can look forward to some hard numbers going into next year from them. On to the provider updates: