Historical Essays

The summer season is officially underway so the last thing anyone wants to think about is school, right? Well, in the eDiscovery market, that is not true – education and certification is a hot topic. eDiscovery professionals are constantly asking eDJ analysts which programs to attend. eDJ launched a survey last month to understand what eDiscovery professionals think about training and certification in our industry and the preliminary results create some food for thought.

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Amber Scorah. Published: 2012-07-02 08:00:50  INTERVIEW WITH Sheryl Thierry, Director of Records Management, URS Infrastructure & EnvironmentRetention schedules can be an important tool for eDiscovery, but it’s important they include a few key components.  I recently spoke with Sheryl Thierry, Director of Records Management at URS Infrastructure & Environment, to get a road map of what an effective records management [...]

Relevance and privilege review dominates the expanding cost of eDiscovery. Controlling that cost has focused innovation to create Technology Assisted Review (TAR) software and service offerings, but the various TAR approaches can be applied to almost every stage of the eDiscovery lifecycle. The trend to consolidate point products into broader eDiscovery platforms provides a pathway to spread TAR methods beyond review. Our recent briefing with FTI on their Ringtail 8.2 release is a good example how a mature product can leverage clustering, machine learning and other analytics to increase quality and efficiency across matter and global workflows. Like several other solutions including CaseCentral, Ringtail 8.2 implements a unified, Single Instance Storage (SIS) repository that gives their analytic data cubes and mines access to collections that span multiple matters. These global analytics support ECA, culling and QA scenarios upstream and downstream from the actual review.

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Mikki Tomlinson. Published: 2012-07-10 11:05:18  Legal hold has been a hot topic in litigation since the Zubulake case rocked the discovery world in 2003.  Since that time there have been a number of products developed to manage the legal hold notice process.  I recently had the opportunity to review several of these applications via a Request for Information (“RFI”) project [...]

At the recent ECI event in Chicago, David Kessler (Fullbright & Jaworski Partner) made an interesting observation that 95% of all civil cases end in settlement while moderating our discussion on project managers in eDiscovery. That ratio was a bit lower than the typical discovery assessment metrics from my Fortune 500 clients, but it peaked my curiosity to see if real published study data existed. I found numerous unattributed comments purporting the rate to be 95-97% cases closed via settlement vs. trial, but the best recent study was a Florida Bar Special Committee report on the declining rate of jury trials. Even if you assume that the trial disposition rates below only correspond to the 11th Circuit and the Florida County courts, the trend is obvious. That 95-97% settlement rate was appropriate 25 years ago, but over 99% of all current cases now are disposed without trial. Despite that low trial rate, a much larger percentage of filed civil litigation will require some or full discovery effort prior to settlement. My question is, does the overwhelming settlement rate discourage litigants from investing in a thorough, defensible eDiscovery process?

Get ready for it folks – there is another “term” battle brewing in the eDiscovery market. Like the debate over technology-assisted review (TAR), computer-assisted review (CAR), and predictive coding (PC), there is a similar one between defensible disposition, defensible deletion, and active expiration. Hopefully, the terminology debate will take a back seat to the real story, which is that companies can reduce costs and decrease risks by proactively getting rid of unnecessary information.