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

Predictive Coding: For What, Not For Whom

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare

PvPSome say that predictive coding isn’t as useful to plaintiffs as it is to defendants. See, for example, this post on Linkedin.

In my view, what really matters is whether the litigant is producing or receiving the documents. Predictive coding is more useful to a producing party than to the receiving party. And, in a way, predictive coding is actually the opposite of post-production analysis. Continue reading

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare

Deduplication Between Parties

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare

DupesEven before either side does a first-pass review of their collected documents, they can easily identify which potentially-discoverable documents both sides already have in common. This process would be fast, inexpensive, and easy, and would allow new kinds of cooperation between parties.

Continue reading

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare

Revolutionary Model EDiscovery Protocol

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare

low-hangingRalph Losey reviews Judge Paul Grimm’s revolutionary model ediscovery protocol order here. Under Judge Grimm’s protocol, parties first produce admissible evidence and only later produce matter “reasonably calculated.”

Judge Grimm is using his discretion to effectively rewrite the Federal Rules to harness the efficiencies that electronic discovery can provide and that proportionality requires. If his method proves out (as I believe it will, at least in larger cases) it will completely transform discovery.

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare