Essays

At The Cowen Group (TCG) Leadership Breakfast in New York two weeks ago, it was agreed by all technology-assisted review (TAR) is a game-changing, disruptive force in eDiscovery and information governance (IG). At last Thursday’s breakfast in Washington, DC, the conversation shifted a bit to include the happy fact that TAR can help satisfy the needs of many constituents: the corporate Legal department that wants to reduce review costs and have more predictable litigation spend; the law firms that want to make more review dollars at higher margins; and the vendors and service providers that want to develop the expertise to help both corporations and law firms.

Chris La Cour’s second annual Carmel Valley eDiscovery Retreat (CVEDR) has just wrapped up three days of topical, interactive discussions in beautiful, relaxed Monterey, California. Many of us who attended last year’s retreat knew that this event is a perfect opportunity to gently introduce your significant other to the eDiscovery social scene away from the crazy crowds and business intensity of Legal Tech New York. The Monterey Bay Aquarium, kayaking and other attractions kept them happily occupied while we debated questions like, “Are you obligated to disclose Technology Assisted Review (TAR) or other analytics if they are used to make relevance decisions?” It was great to see many familiar top speakers and providers, but I do hope that more entry level corporations and law firms realize how valuable these smaller events are to new eDiscovery professionals. CVEDR tries to avoid ‘death by power point’ and the classic bobble-headed panelists reading from notes with those familiar droning Charlie Brown style teacher voices. Instead, the event has four themes each with five related topic sessions per track. That’s a lot of content and expertise crammed into two and a half days.

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Barry Murphy. Published: 2012-08-02 09:00:02  The last two Cowen Group (TCG) Leadership Breakfasts (in New York and Washington, DC) established that TAR is a disruptive force that can benefit corporate legal departments, law firms, and solution providers.  With the notion of benefits all around, we took the breakfast to Los Angeles where the conversation around TAR was markedly different, but [...]

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Kevin L. Nichols. Published: 2012-08-06 09:00:53  Whether it is self-imposed or the industry standard to attend certain “trade show” style conferences, the Carmel Valley eDiscovery Retreat (“CVeDR”), truly was a “retreat” from the norm.  Despite the obvious, which was enjoying the beautiful setting of Monterey while hovering over the ocean, the conference attracted many “heavy hitters” in the industry such [...]

Technology-Assisted Review (TAR) is not simply a hyped up market category. In fact, I predicted late last year that 2012 would be the year that TAR goes mainstream. That prediction was based on data from an eDJ Group survey that found that by the end of 2012, market penetration for the TAR technique predictive coding should be over 50%. In getting beyond the hype of the Da Silva Moore and Kleen Products cases, I have had the opportunity to speak with several end users about their experiences with predictive coding and other forms of TAR. Those stories will be featured in an upcoming report from eDJ Group.

Following the country-wide tour of The Cowen Group (TCG) Leadership Breakfasts is proving to be valuable and interesting. There are commonalities in each city, such as the fact that most attendees realize that technology-assisted review (TAR) is the inevitable future of legal review and presents new economic opportunities for corporations, law firms, and service providers alike. But, the breakfasts in each city each have a unique local flavor.

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Amber Scorah. Published: 2012-08-09 09:00:39  INTERVIEW WITH Chad P. Brouillard, Esq., Attorney, Foster & Eldridge, LLPIn the past, state and federal auditing environments have not been very aggressive in ensuring compliance with HIPAA and the HITECH Act, but that is changing. Government regulators are increasing their audit frequency and fine amounts.Although many health facilities have invested in high-tech records management [...]

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Mikki Tomlinson. Published: 2012-08-09 09:00:52  The Executive Counsel Institute (ECI) Corporate Exchange programs are always excellent.  Not only are the discussions educational and informative, they are important.  The New York event that took place on July 16-17, 2012, was no exception.  Here is my take on a few of the program highlights.Information Governance:  While there was not a session dedicated [...]

Each of The Cowen Group (TCG) Leadership Breakfasts has its own unique feel. While there are many common discussion points, such as the disruptive nature of Technology Assisted Review (TAR), the need for new skills like project management, and the desire to capture the cost savings TAR promises; each event takes on a life of its own. The Chicago Leadership Breakfast was no different – there was discussion about the benefits of TAR and the challenges to widespread adoption, but there was a more pragmatic feel to the overall discussion and an emphasis on metrics that can prove the value of TAR. It was actually a perfect way to head into the hiatus before the next breakfasts in Atlanta and Minneapolis in September.

I always enjoy meeting other super geeks who revel in playing on the cutting edge of discovery technology. While I will reserve the ‘geek’ label for myself, my conversation on TAR with David D. Lewis was definitely a highlight at the Carmel Valley eDiscovery Retreat. Now I owe David for bringing the recent Actos Products case management order to my attention (MDL No. 6:11-md-2299). The order lays out the agreed upon protocol for a “Search Methodology Proof of Concept” to test Equivio’s Relevance predictive coding on 4 of 29 custodian’s ESI as a possible substitute for traditional manual review of the entire collection. Once you get into the specific email protocol (Section E) the order starts to read like it could have been copied directly from a savvy provider’s procedural manual. Now don’t get me wrong, the parties are using this process as a ‘proof of concept’ limited to four custodian’s email to see if they can apply these analytics to the broader potential ESI collection. There are lots of mandatory meet and confer check points along the process where either side could raise concerns or essentially bring the process back to the bench, but I am guessing that this train has left the station.