Search results for: simple

Expect a barrage of press release headlines claiming triumph from Gartner’s new “Critical Capabilities for E-Discovery Software” ranking report. FTI is happy to furnish you a copy in exchange for your contact info rather than pay the $1,995 list price. The eDiscovery market has always been too broad to be realistically covered in one ‘Magic Diagram’ by either of the traditional analyst firms. That is why eDJ Group decided to focus on detailed market analysis of actual buying categories instead of over-simplified scatter graphs from the earliest days. Gartner’s new report ranks qualified providers (read analyst clients) in three eDiscovery usage cases by different weightings of rankings in six ‘critical capabilities’. Surprisingly, Gartner has actually published the raw and calculated scores along with the provider qualification criteria. My time as a ‘market analyst’ made me a serious skeptic of most analyst reports and ranking diagrams. It is nice to see a big firm make small steps towards the ideal of transparent, granular analysis aligned with consumer purchasing requirements.

As I conduct my 2015 Analytics research, I am asking interview respondents how they think the trend towards analytics and automation will impact eDiscovery careers and roles in the next five years. I have just finished my first round of interviews and already have a couple interesting tidbits to share. We all know that technology has the long term potential to replace, reduce or transform jobs in any field. My initial respondents certainly felt that automation of technical collection, processing and culling tasks would reduce technician headcount, but not impact ECA, search crafting and other tasks requiring human discretion. Interestingly enough, they did NOT think that PC-TAR review would eliminate full time paralegal or counsel positions. Instead, they felt that the swollen ranks of firm associates and contract attorney reviewers were vulnerable to market pressure instead. Not from PC-TAR adoption, but from proportionate, targeted collections resulting from maturing eDiscovery teams empowered by the new Federal rules and caselaw. You don’t need PC-TAR for a single skilled practitioner to tackle a couple thousand email and files with a modern eDiscovery platform like Relativity, IPRO, CaseData or others. A decade ago, savvy paralegals loaded small custodial self-collections using Summation’s eDocs & eMail module (sidenote: the requirements for that module were done on bev naps at my favorite SF bar – Plouf). Despite all the technical limitations and problems, that desktop software met the self service needs for most small matters without a huge eDiscovery budget. It is my view that the use of analytics on in-place enterprise data to make proportionate, defensible collections will return us to those days for a large percentage of matters. There will always be massive class action, EEOC, regulatory or IP matters that require large scale PC-TAR or linear review, but these should be the exception. Smart providers and practitioners will adapt their offerings and skills to meet the new demands. More insight as my interviews continue. I still have some time slots open for corporate or firm practitioners willing to share their perspective on analytics in eDiscovery, so send me an email or at least take the survey!

A recent RFP engagement reminded me how useful it is to be able to find SaaS-Cloud offerings without having to use the filters on my eDJ Matrix. So I created a new category for tech offerings that have a SaaS-Cloud purchase option. I am still updating listings for the new Online Purchase feature, but hope that providers will update their listings before I catch up.

The simple answer is NO, but it does open the door for parties to request the court’s approval to use PC/TAR techniques for relevance determination. The Pyrrho decision is a quick read and has some interesting notes. In this case, the 3.1 million file collection was extracted from more than 17.6 million files restored from back up tapes using deduplication, custodians and search criteria. This was still considered overly large for full manual review in proportion to the matter. Folks, back up tapes are NOT a preservation repository. One counsel initially proposed using technology to relevance rank the entire collection for more efficient full manual review, but both parties agreed to use full Predictive Coding to minimize attorney time and have a trained system for any new data sources that turn up. So does this mean that every technology provider must support full PC/TAR for UK eDisclosure matters? Similar to the U.S. early bench decisions such as Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe back in 2015, this just opens the door for parties to get court approval when both sides want to use the technology to tackle a big collection. Moreover, there are many different ways to implement machine learning functionality that support different usage cases before and after relevance review, most of which do not require court or opposing parties approval. I was sent an interesting exchange from the Vound Intella forum that demonstrates the natural tendency of a loyal customers to immediately request PC functionality in the wake of the Pyrrho decision. My ongoing analytics adoption research indicates that large scale PC for relevance review is still used in a very small portion of overall matters where the initial cost and potential overproduction of non-relevant docs are justified. I am more interested in providers thinking outside the box and using machine learning for selective collection criteria, trial prep, IG categorization and analysis of opposing productions. The right tool for the right problem is the key.

If you put off registering, you dodged the $50 late penalty that ALM used to bump up early registration this year. It vanished from the event site as the December 1 deadline passed. It will still cost you $99 to access the Exhibit hall and keynotes if you do not register before the show, so don’t procrastinate. Mikki and myself will be escorting clients on shopping missions, briefing with providers and generally catching up with friends old and new at the social events. I am running late this year filling my conference schedule, so shoot me an email if you would like to talk shop.

Enjoy my ad hoc observations and opinions on last year’s market and the trends that I am watching:• Dramatic, transparent M&A activity. >$2.5 B compared to $92M in 2014. Even if you remove $1.6B from acquisitions of Kofax and Aderant as being eDiscovery adjacent, we still had 800-1000% investment growth. • Massive, slow migration from enterprise data centers to outsourced private cloud, Office 365, Google Docs and other SaaS/IaaS solutions. More

Ever wonder what happened to your favorite local or even national vendor? Last week’s rebranding announcement of UBIC/Evolve/TechLaw to FRONTEO forced me to do some overdue maintenance on the eDJ Matrix and got me thinking of brands. We all know that the eDiscovery market is slowly consolidating as it matures. Just watching DTI gobbling up regional shops like pac-man reinforces the “Join, or Die” message that I have blogged on far too many times. A couple quick searches and database checks revealed that most brands disappear in full mergers or acquisitions such as the formation of Omnivere or Consilio. So the FRONTEO rebranding is almost a hybrid merger/branding exercise. TCDI just renamed themselves CVFox and CSDisco is now just DISCO. As our market matures and providers try to differentiate themselves from every other Relativity partner, I expect to see more companies shed older generic name elements such as documents, solutions, services, copy and even discovery.

As I return to take briefings and monitor all my news engines, I am struck by the challenges faced by all of kCura’s competitors. There is no denying that Andrew Sieja has maneuvered Relativity into being the default hosted review platform for large discovery matters. The majority of recent eDJ RFP engagements for managed services have boiled down to what flavor of Relativity the client wants vs. whether they are willing to fight their retained counsel over using an alternative platform. Thus the differentiation theme I keep seeing in my provider briefings. They all trot out what they can do better and cheaper than Relativity as if that should convince AmLaw buyers to jump ship. We saw a similar hype cycle with Clearwell before the product went to hide in the Symantec portfolio. (to be fair, this seems to be the fate of EVERY eDiscovery product acquired by a software Borg) It will be interesting to see how this plays out against the Microsoft-Equivio team’s steady progress towards free in-place eDiscovery functionality. Returning to my briefing by the TCDI Fox team, let’s give you the highlights:

I decided to just get you my raw notes and impressions from the exhibit hall floor, formal briefings and shop talk.First Impressions:• Orange continues to be the new black. Seems that everyone wants to imitate kCura• Automation is everywhere. Frequent flyer marketing terms include Simple, Efficient, Automated, Integrated.• What’s with all the empty booths? Kept seeing booths without reps.• Good size crowd of attendees, but serious reduction in the number of booths. The entire 3rd floor is empty. • Briefing sessions alternated between the Sheraton and the London. Problem is that several elevators were out at the Sheraton…• How do I know it is Legal Tech time? It’s snowing!• Don’t do videos or even demos beyond screen shots at conference. Save them for post conference online meetings.

How to describe talking shop with CEO Andrew Sieja, Shawn Gaines and Jacque Flarherty after the team has spent days hosting two thousand peers and customers? Frenetic comes to mind. Our briefing topic hopped faster than a sexaholic swiping right on Tinder (see Andrew’s hysterical keynote malapropism below). I always enjoy these meetings and since I already caught you up after my ILTA briefing, we focused on what made Relativity Fest different from LTNY and the traditional trade shows.