Cooperation in Ediscovery: Counsel’s Database

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare

In 1997, Judge D. Brooks Smith (W.D. PA) ordered the defendant in a class action to produce its counsel’s database of potentially responsive documents or suffer the consequences. One reason I sought that order was to cut through what would otherwise have been an untenably expensive process. Here are excerpts from the transcript, and the minute entry. Continue reading

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare

Social Document Review: Collaborative Annotation

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare

connectionsWBG-200-CorGroup document reviews usually aren’t particularly ennobling. And in recent years we’ve learned that they can sometimes produce results that are worse than what we’d get from a well-trained machine.

That can change. We can use social technology to make group document reviews better, faster, and less costly, while making the reviewers’ work more professionally rewarding to them and more valuable to their employers. Continue reading

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare

Minds Matter: H5, Rules-Based TAR, and Cooperation

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare

dipole_small copyThis article is about how H5‘s rules-based approach to technology-assisted review provides a great framework for illustrating cooperation in ediscovery. But first, some context.

By this time next year, Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will have been amended to codify the principles of proportionality and cooperation between opposing counsel. Continue reading

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare

Technology-Assisted Review: Quickly Compute Case Dictionaries

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare

My last post showed how you can use pre-reviewed seed sets of relevant and irrelevant documents to help prioritize unreviewed documents, using WordSmith 6 from Lexical Analysis Software Ltd. (USD $88.73 or EUR €67.57 from lexically.net – Please note that I’m not affiliated with Lexical.)

Here’s how you can help your document reviewers hit the ground running by investing a few hours of attorney or paralegal time with WordSmith before you’ve reviewed any documents. Continue reading

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare