Ediscovery: Information is Free

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare

Infinity_hexagonal_axonometric_svg_sml, © Nevit Dilmen [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia CommonsOn August 3, 2015, ediscovery SAAS provider Logikcull unveiled the first all-inclusive, flat rate pricing plans in the ediscovery industry. I interviewed Logikcull’s CEO, Andy Wilson, about his company and its business model. What follows is an abridged version of that interview, vetted by Andy for accuracy. 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

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

Technology-Assisted Review: Thinking Inside the Box

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare

Technology-Assisted Review: Thinking Inside the BoxI think that the Brainspace Discovery 4 analytical engine (http://brainspace.com) is pointing the way to the future of technology-assisted review. In short, Discovery 4 exposes its inferences about which concepts indicate responsiveness and allows reviewers to adjust them. Continue reading

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare

Deduplication Protocol

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare

Please take a look at Craig Ball’s informative blog post on deduplication and my comment. Craig explains why deduplication isn’t more widely used even though it makes ediscovery faster and cheaper, and he describes the main methods of deduplication. I add my view that reasonable counsel should agree on a bilateral deduplication method before any deduplication is done, and I include a few considerations about how counsel should use proportionality to determine what method is appropriate under the circumstances.

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

Statistically Improbable Phrases in Technology-Assisted Review

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare


amazonAmazon.com computes and displays “Statistically Improbable Phrases” for its indexed books. It defines a Statistically Improbable Phrase as “a phrase that occurs a large number of times in a particular book relative to all [indexed] books.” You can use similar statistics to help you improve your technology-assisted review. Continue reading

TwitterLinkedInFacebookGoogle GmailYahoo MailAOL MailEmailPocketEvernoteInstapaperShare