In the annals of case law about e-discovery and technology assisted review (TAR), Malone v. Kantner Ingredients will be only a footnote. In fact, were it not for a footnote, the case would barely warrant mention here.
This blog has chronicled the increasing judicial acceptance of TAR, starting with U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck’s seminal 2012 opinion in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, which was the first to approve TAR, and continuing through to Judge Peck’s recent opinion in Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale SA, which declared, “the case law has developed to the point that it is now black letter law that where the producing party wants to utilize TAR for document review, courts will permit it.” Continue reading
With 2015 already half over, we thought it would be interesting to look back at which were our most popular posts on this blog. These are the posts that received the most traffic during the first six months of the year, regardless of the year the posts were originally published.
As you can see, there is great interest among our readers in a simple but vexing question: How many documents are in a gigabyte? Two posts on that topic by Catalyst’s CEO John Tredennick are persistently among our most popular, as is a third on how many bytes in a gigabyte. And stay tuned, because John has been promising still another update with new information.
Other popular topics included technology assisted review, privilege logs, e-discovery costs and e-discovery ethics. Continue reading
U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck — author of the first-ever court decision approving the use of technology assisted review in e-discovery — was recently a guest on the Legal Talk Network podcast Digital Detectives. Hosts Sharon D. Nelson and John W. Simek, president and vice president of Sensei Enterprises, interviewed Judge Peck about how TAR works, what cases it is suitable for, and how it is being accepted in the courts.
Given Judge Peck’s leadership in broadening the adoption of TAR, we thought his comments would be of interest to readers of this blog. With the gracious permission of Sharon, John and the Legal Talk Network, below is a partial transcript of the show highlighting Judge Peck’s comments on TAR. You can hear the entire program through the Soundcloud player above or at the Legal Talk Network. Continue reading
I do not know if any leprechauns appeared in this case, but the Irish High Court found the proverbial pot of gold under the TAR rainbow in Irish Bank Resolution Corp. vs. Quinn—the first decision outside the U.S. to approve the use of Technology Assisted Review for civil discovery.
The protocol at issue in the March 3, 2015, decision was TAR 1.0 (Clearwell). For that reason, some of the points addressed by the court will be immaterial for legal professionals who use the more-advanced TAR 2.0 and Continuous Active Learning (CAL). Even so, the case makes for an interesting read, both for its description of the TAR process at issue and for its ultimate outcome. Continue reading
When e-discovery goes international, it gets even more complex and costly. But technology assisted review can be as effective in reducing costs for multi-language, multinational matters as it is for matters here in the U.S.
This infographic illustrates how Catalyst Insight Predict helped streamline a recent patent litigation for a Japanese client. See how Predict’s Continuous Active Learning improved results and cut the time and cost of review by over 85%.
View Infographic >
Read Full Case Study >
No actual birds were harmed in the making of this blog post!
Since the advent of Technology Assisted Review (aka TAR, predictive coding or computer-assisted review), one of the open questions is whether you have to run a separate TAR process for each item in a document request. As litigation professionals know, it is rare to have only one numbered request in a Rule 34 pleading. Rather, you can expect to see scores of requests (typically as many as the local rules allow). Continue reading
I have been on the road quite a bit lately, attending and speaking at several e-discovery events. Most recently I was at the midyear meeting of the Sedona Conference Working Group 1 in Dallas, and before that I was a speaker at both the University of Florida’s 3rd Annual Electronic Discovery Conference and the 4th Annual ASU-Arkfeld E-Discovery and Digital Evidence Conference.
In my travels and elsewhere, I continue to see a marked increase in talk about the new TAR 2.0 protocol, Continuous Active Learning (CAL). I have been seeing increasing interest in CAL ever since the July 2014 release of the Grossman/Cormack study, “Evaluation of Machine-Learning Protocols for Technology-Assisted Review in Electronic Discovery.” Continue reading
Catalyst founder and CEO John Tredennick is a featured guest on the latest episode of Karl Schieneman’s ESI Bytes podcast, where he talks about the challenges of introducing innovative technologies to the legal community. Also on this episode are Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and Jay Lieb, a founder of NexLP.
In this episode, both Schieneman and Judge Facciola serve as the interviewers, asking questions of Tredennick and Lieb, with Judge Facciola also sharing his own insights. Schieneman explained his intent in choosing the topic of innovating technology:
Every year the most popular CLE program in the country is LegalTech so one would think the desire to learn new technology is rampant among lawyers. Experience in the field would tend to suggest otherwise. We thought it would be interesting to have two entrepreneur technologists on the show to talk about their perspectives on gaining adoption of new technologies in the legal space.
You can listen to or download the podcast here.
Technology assisted review has a transparency problem. Notwithstanding TAR’s proven savings in both time and review costs, many attorneys hesitate to use it because courts require “transparency” in the TAR process.
Specifically, when courts approve requests to use TAR, they often set the condition that counsel disclose the TAR process they used and which documents they used for training. In some cases, the courts have gone so far as to allow opposing counsel to kibitz during the training process itself. Continue reading
It is has been three years since U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck issued the first court decision approving the use of technology assisted review in e-discovery, Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Grp., 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Peck, M.J.), affd, 2012 WL 1446534 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2012). “This Opinion appears to be the first in which a Court has approved of the use of computer-assisted review,” he wrote then.
Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck
Now, in an opinion released yesterday, Judge Peck says that, in the years since Da Silva Moore, “the case law has developed to the point that it is now black letter law that where the producing party wants to utilize TAR for document review, courts will permit it.” Continue reading