A lawyer and veteran legal journalist, Bob advises Catalyst on strategic communications and marketing matters. He is also a practicing lawyer in Massachusetts and is the former editor-in-chief of The National Law Journal, Lawyers USA and Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. A fellow of the College of Law Practice Management, he also writes the blog LawSites.
Two 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 →
[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:
We are halfway through a document review. It is taking us longer than we anticipated and we are running short on time. We are considering using technology assisted review to help expedite the remainder of the project. Our question is whether it would make sense to start using TAR at this stage.
A small company made big news in the e-discovery world last week when it filed a series of patent infringement lawsuits against kCura, developer of the Relativity search and review platform, and several of kCura’s partners, alleging violation of a patent for concept-based visual presentation of search results.
Here at Catalyst, we get a lot of good questions about e-discovery technology. And we answer every question we get. Whether the question comes from a client, a webinar attendee, or anyone else, we make sure it gets answered.
And we have some really smart people who answer the questions. That’s not to brag, it’s just a statement of fact. We have one of the world’s leading information retrieval scientists. We have the lawyer who was lead e-discovery counsel in the first contested case to win approval for the use of technology assisted review. We have another former litigator who also started his own e-discovery software company. We have a staff brimming with highly experienced technology and litigation-support experts of all kinds. Continue reading →
In a March 31 issue paper, the commission says it is studying the role played by unregulated legal service providers (LSPs) in the delivery of legal services. The commission explains that it is “gathering data on the spectrum of services that these unregulated LSP entities provide to the public and eliciting feedback on whether the public would benefit if state judicial authorities develop new regulatory structures for these entities.” Continue reading →
Litigators have long relied on folders to manage electronic case documents. Typically, we build and manage these folders manually. But Catalyst Insight’s Search Folders feature lets users build folders that organize documents dynamically based on field data, full-text searches or both.
The Dynamic Search Folders feature is a powerful tool for early case assessment, review or even production. In this short video, Catalyst’s founder and CEO John Tredennick demonstrates how it works.
In a recent post here, we noted that Britain’s High Court of Justice had approved the use of technology assisted review, becoming the first case to do so in the United Kingdom and only the second case outside the U.S. to approve TAR.
These two non-U.S. decisions approving TAR are significant in and of themselves. But they are also notable for another reason. They show that “e-discovery isn’t just for Americans anymore,” as my friend and former colleague David Horrigan tells Legaltech News in an article published this week. Continue reading →
Litigants in federal court are expected to cooperate with each other in developing a discovery plan. As part of such a plan, it is increasingly common for parties to stipulate to the search terms they will use to search their electronically stored information for documents that are relevant to the dispute. But to what extent does a search stipulation create an obligation to produce the documents that contain matching terms? Does the stipulation create a de facto requirement to produce all matching documents?
That was the argument made by the plaintiffs in a motion to compel recently decided in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut. The parties had agreed to a list of search terms to be used by the defendant in its search of emails from 23 custodians. When defendant ran the search, it returned 38,000 matching documents. Continue reading →
Catalyst designs, builds and hosts the world’s fastest and most powerful document repositories for large-scale discovery and regulatory compliance. We back our technology with a highly skilled Professional Services team and a global partner network to ensure the best e-discovery experience possible.