Search results for: simple

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Mikki Tomlinson. Published: 2012-04-24 05:00:51Format, images and links may no longer function correctly. “Are we Pricing Ourselves Out of Business?” That was the first thing I heard when I answered an early morning phone call last week.  [...]

While companies embrace The Cloud for various business purposes, the ability to conduct eDiscovery on information stored in The Cloud tends to be an afterthought – less than 16% of respondents in eDJ’s survey last year reported creating an eDiscovery plan before moving data to The Cloud. This number is not surprising. eDiscovery is not exactly the sexiest topic in the world and, unless a company has been burned before, there is less urgency to prepare for it. In addition, many just assume that, as long as data is searchable, eDiscovery requirements are met. It is not as simple as that, unfortunately. Recently, though, eDJ was briefed on product aimed at making eDiscovery of data stored in The Cloud possible in an efficient manner.

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Chuck Rothman. Published: 2012-04-04 05:00:46Format, images and links may no longer function correctly. Although Processing is smack dab in the middle of the EDRM, little real consideration is paid to it. When going through the various EDRM [...]

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Chuck Rothman. Published: 2012-04-17 07:00:05Format, images and links may no longer function correctly. Parts 1 and 2 of this series illustrated some of the issues that should be considered when processing electronic records. This final part continues [...]

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Mikki Tomlinson. Published: 2012-06-15 04:00:29Format, images and links may no longer function correctly. A discussion between parties on form of production prior to data production really isn’t that difficult. So, why don’t we do it more often?  [...]

Technology Assisted Review (TAR) has dominated our recent briefing sessions with providers and consumers alike. Consumers want eDJ to clarify the terminology, technology and market hype surrounding recent cases. Providers have expressed their frustration with the portrayal of TAR as some kind of ‘Easy Button’ that will magically reduce your review expense by 95%. Really. We are hearing second hand stories like, “But VendorX says his system only needs to train with 5%.” Early TAR innovators like DiscoverReady’s CEO Jim Wagner long ago understood that, “It’s not the technology. It’s the people and process.” That can be a complicated message for a relatively unsophisticated consumer who reads blogger headlines instead of the actual transcripts. Discovery and review cease to be easy or routine as the volume and composition of potential collections exceed the ability of a single reviewer to manually code every item. Beyond simple relevance the additional complexities of privilege in TAR keep coming up in our briefings.

Do you file your critical email in folders or just search for what you need? Filer or finder does not matter until your company decides to clean up its digital landfills. Records management sounds easy at first. Users designate actual business records and some system expires (deletes) non-record communications and loose Office files after an acceptable time for business use. Microsoft introduced Managed Folders for Outlook 2007 to support this exact process. Although they could have replicated the same functionality into normal file shares (directories), they chose to nudge the market to migrate loose content to Sharepoint for many reasons. The entire ‘foldering’ concept is dependent on overburdened users taking the time and effort to make active decisions on every email they send or receive. Many users have given up trying to file email or files into the appropriate folders and instead just rely on Outlook/Windows search (weak) or aftermarket desktop search engines like X1 or ISYS to find items when they need them. So how does a company minimize user (and productivity) impact while implementing a selective retention initiative (i.e. stop keeping everything)?

In our recent post on the winners and losers in the eDiscovery software market, we called out Access Data for seemingly abandoning the desktop license market. That one comment prompted quite a few spirited responses from a number of software providers who wanted to make sure that eDJ was clear that they were still focused on the sale of traditional desktop license software. First and foremost was the Access Data product management team who were happy to dive into their Summation Express product (more on that below) as proof that they were committed to their stand alone customer base. Sherpa Software stepped up to tell us that their primary customer base has always been corporate and law firm IT departments who need a simple solution for search, processing and export of email and native files that can be run from a desktop or workstation. I really appreciated Rich Ruyle’s point about why IPRO continued to develop an enterprise and desktop version of their Eclipse product. The IPRO enterprise version is based on a relational database while the desktop version uses IPRO’s proprietary flat file database. It is clear to eDJ that the market for desktop discovery software is strong and vital.

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Steve Markey. Published: 2012-05-29 05:00:01Format, images and links may no longer function correctly. This past week I was at the Business of the Cloud conference in Dallas, TX and sat next to Adam Swidler, a senior manager [...]

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.