Ask Catalyst: In TAR, What Is Validation And Why Is It Important?

[Editor’s note: This is another post in our “Ask Catalyst” series, in which we answer your questions about e-discovery search and review. To learn more and submit your own question, go here.]  

Twitter_Ask_Catalyst_John_TredennickThis week’s question:

In technology assisted review, what is validation and why is it important?

Today’s question is answered by John Tredennick, founder and CEO.

Validation is the “act of confirming that a process has achieved its intended purpose.”[1] It is important to TAR for several reasons, including the need to ensure the TAR algorithm has worked properly and because Rule 26(g) requires counsel to certify that the process they used for producing discovery documents was reasonable and reasonably effective.[2]  While courts have approved validation methods in specific cases,[3] no court has yet purported to set forth specific validation standards applicable to all cases or for all TAR review projects. Continue reading

Companies’ Use of TAR Grows, Reports New Survey of Litigation Trends

Litigation_Trends_Survey_TCNot only are more companies using technology assisted review, but they are using it in a much broader range of matters, concludes the 12th annual Litigation Trends Survey by the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright.

The proportion of respondents using TAR increased from 57 percent in 2015 to 60 percent this year, the survey finds. In the U.S., two-thirds of all companies use TAR, whereas 46 percent of UK companies use it.

More significantly, of the companies that are using TAR, they are using it for more of their matters, with 29 percent using it in half or more of their matters. Continue reading

Ask Catalyst: What Is Catalyst’s Student Search & ECA Practicum?

Twitter_Ask_Catalyst_Bob_AmbrogiWith law students having recently returned to classrooms throughout the U.S., we thought we’d do something a bit different with our weekly Ask Catalyst feature. We’re interviewing Patty Daly, Catalyst’s managing director of training, about Catalyst’s Student Search & ECA Practicum, a first-of-its-kind e-discovery learning program that gives law students hands-on experience using an e-discovery application. Bob Ambrogi, Catalyst’s director of communications, conducts the interview. Continue reading

Data Analytics and the Changing Face of Corporate Compliance

DataEscalating enforcement of anti-corruption laws around the world is driving chief compliance and risk officers to find smarter and more effective ways to monitor compliance programs, and a key way they are doing that is through data analytics, reports Jaclyn Jaeger at Compliance Week (subscription required but free trial available).

But because most compliance departments do not have bottomless budgets, “the wise ones are piggy-backing off technology their companies already employ — like technology-assisted review,” Jaeger writes.

She quotes Mark Noel, managing director of professional services at Catalyst: “People are learning that the same techniques that we use with e-discovery translate and apply to compliance searches.” Continue reading

Ask Catalyst: Is Recall A Fair Measure Of The Validity Of A Production Response?

[Editor’s note: This is another post in our “Ask Catalyst” series, in which we answer your questions about e-discovery search and review. To learn more and submit your own question, go here.]  

Ask_Catalyst_TC_John_TredennickThis week’s question:

Is recall a fair measure of the validity of a production response?

Today’s question is answered by John Tredennick, founder and CEO. Continue reading

Ask Catalyst: How Does Insight Predict Handle Synonyms?

By | This entry was posted in Ask Catalyst and tagged on by .

[Editor’s note: This is another post in our “Ask Catalyst” series, in which we answer your questions about e-discovery search and review. To learn more and submit your own question, go here.]

We received this question:

Ask_Catalyst_TC_Jeremy_Pickens
How does Insight Predict handle synonyms? For example, assume document 1 has “car” in it and not “automobile” and document 2 has “automobile” and not “car.” If Predict gets the thumbs up on document 1, it doesn’t necessarily rank document 2 high, correct? It doesn’t know that the words are the same concept, right?

Today’s question is answered by Dr. Jeremy Pickens, senior applied research scientist.

As the Catalyst scientist who developed Insight Predict, I made the conscious, explicit choice not to build synonyms into the process. I’ll tell you why: Continuous learning obviates the issue. Continue reading

Ask Catalyst: How Can You Validate Without A Control Set? (Part 2)

[This is another post in our “Ask Catalyst” series, in which we answer your questions about e-discovery search and review. To learn more and submit your own question, go here.]

Ask_Catalyst_TC_Thomas_GricksWe received this question:

I hear you don’t use a control set in your TAR 2.0 processes? If so, how can you validate your results?

Today’s question is answered by Thomas Gricks, managing director of professional services. Continue reading

A Discussion About Dynamo Holdings: Is 43% Recall Enough?

blog_john_and_tomIn September 2014, Judge Ronald L. Buch became the first to sanction the use of technology assisted review (aka predictive coding) in the U.S. Tax Court. See Dynamo Holdings Limited Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 143 T.C. No. 9. We mentioned it here.

This summer, Judge Buch issued a follow-on order addressing the IRS commissioner’s objections to the outcome of the TAR process, which we chronicled here. In that opinion, he affirmed the petitioner’s TAR process and rejected the commissioner’s challenge that the production was not adequate. In doing so, the judge debunked what he called the two myths of review, namely that human review is the “gold standard” or that any discovery response is or can be perfect. Continue reading

Ask Catalyst: How Can You Validate Without A Control Set?

[This is another post in our “Ask Catalyst” series, in which we answer your questions about e-discovery search and review. To learn more and submit your own question, go here.]

Ask_Catalyst_TC_Thomas_GricksWe received this question:

I hear you don’t use a control set in your TAR 2.0 processes? If so, how can you validate your results?

Today’s question is answered by Thomas Gricks, managing director of professional services. Continue reading

In Affirming Use of TAR, Tax Court Takes Down ‘Two Myths’ of Review

TC_CourtTwo years ago, U.S. Tax Court Judge Ronald L. Buch broke new ground when he became the first judge to formally sanction the use of technology assisted review in the Tax Court. In Dynamo Holdings Limited Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Judge Buch said that TAR “is an expedited and efficient form of computer-assisted review that allows parties in litigation to avoid the time and costs associated with the traditional, manual review of large volumes of documents.”

After receiving Judge Buch’s permission, the petitioners went on to use a TAR process and to use the results of that process to respond to the IRS commissioner’s discovery requests. Earlier this year, believing the response to be incomplete, the commissioner served a new set of discovery requests. When petitioners objected, the commissioner filed a motion to compel, thus bringing the TAR issue before Judge Buch a second time. Continue reading