Two years ago, it was big news in the world of e-discovery when U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck issued the first judicial opinion expressly approving the use of predictive coding. As other judges followed suit, issuing their own opinions endorsing or approving predictive coding, the trend led law firm Gibson Dunn, in its annual e-discovery update, to declare 2012 “the year of predictive coding.”
The trend towards judicial acceptance of predictive coding and other forms of technology assisted review (TAR) has continued, to the point where it is now newsworthy when a judge declines to order TAR. Continue reading
Did you know that Catalyst Insight includes a variety of “hotkey” shortcuts that can help save costly reviewer time? Would you know how to conduct a search for initials in Insight without also bringing up every word in which those letters appear together?
You can learn tips and tricks such as these by following the newly launched training blog from Catalyst’s training department. The blog is intended to help users get the most out of Catalyst’s products such as Insight and Insight Predict. The blog will also provide announcements of new and updated training materials and of updates to products and features. Continue reading
The head of Catalyst’s South Korea office, Youngsoo Park, is the coauthor with Jeongho Yoo of a just-published Korean-language book about e-discovery for business leaders. The book, What Every Business Person Should Know about eDiscovery, provides a comprehensive overview of all aspects of e-discovery.
The book is only the second ever about e-discovery published in Korea and the first in which hands-on professionals explore the topic in depth. The book covers the history and basics of e-discovery and then examines key topics and legal issues in e-discovery practice, both in the United States and Korea. It also explains several of the leading technology platforms for e-discovery, including Catalyst Insight. The book was published earlier this month in Seoul by InfoTheBooks.com.
Park, who is considered one of the leading e-discovery experts in Korea, joined Catalyst in 2013, when the company opened its first office in Seoul. He oversees the office and the expansion of Catalyst’s Asia-Pacific operations into South Korea. Continue reading
Perhaps the best snapshot of the state of e-discovery in the U.S. is the annual Electronic Discovery and Information Law Update from the law firm Gibson Dunn. For several years in a row, the headline of the update centered on sanctions, as I’ve noted here before. Then, for the 2012 year-end report, the rise of predictive coding edged out sanctions as the update’s lead.
Now, Gibson Dunn is out with its year-end update for 2013, and the big news is the year’s lack of big news. That is not to say that nothing of interest happened in 2013 — plenty did. But it was not a year of blockbuster cases or major legal developments in e-discovery. Rather, it was a year in which companies prescribed themselves some preventive medicine, taking steps to avoid the very kinds of problems that brought on those ginormous sanctions of the past. Here is how the update describes it: Continue reading
For corporations that want to rein in litigation costs, multi-matter repositories make a lot of sense — especially for corporations that have large quantities of electronically stored information and multiple legal matters. Why pay to store multiple copies of the same document? Why load and process the same data over and over again? Why review the same document for privilege in each new matter?
It makes far more sense to store a document once and use it in as many different matters as you need it. It is far more cost-efficient to load and process the document just once, to review it for privilege just once, and to store it just once.
If you are attending LegalTech New York this week, be sure to visit Catalyst at Booth 1511 to see the speed and power of Big Discovery firsthand. To demonstrate the Big Data capabilities of Catalyst Insight — the one e-discovery platform specifically engineered to meet the e-discovery demands of global corporations and their counsel — Catalyst will be using a live database of more than 23 million records.
We believe that this is by far the largest live database over used by a vendor at the show. It is nearly 38 times larger than the 600,000-document Enron data set typically used to demo e-discovery platforms. You will be able to see for yourself Insight’s unrivaled speed when working with large data sets.
Of course, there will also be some not-to-be-missed giveaways at the booth, including some with a theme distinctly tied to Colorado, where Catalyst is headquartered. Be sure to come by and find out what all the buzz is about.
“I coulda’ been a contender,” Marlon Brando famously lamented in the 1954 film On the Waterfront. Well, Catalyst actually is a contender, for best in four e-discovery categories in The National Law Journal’s Best of 2014 readers’ rankings.
Catalyst is a finalist in these four categories:
- Who is the nation’s top end-to-end e-discovery provider? (question 16).
- Who offers the nation’s best predictive coding e-discovery solution? (Question 17.)
- Best data and technology management e-discovery provider. (Question 18.)
- Best online review platform. (Question 23.)
Do you use Catalyst Insight, the next-generation e-discovery platform? Have you tried Insight Predict, Catalyst’s innovative engine for technology-assisted review?
If so, take a moment to complete the NLJ survey and please consider giving Catalyst your vote. Deadline for voting is Feb. 10, so get your votes in soon.
To what extent can the costs of e-discovery be recovered by a prevailing party in federal court? The U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has just issued an opinion that provides a detailed analysis of that question, concluding that the answer hinges on which costs fall within a 21st Century definition of “copying.”
In CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., the Federal Circuit considered the extent to which e-discovery costs fall under 28 USC § 1920, the federal statute that lists the costs that can be recovered in federal litigation. The only provision of that statute that would apply to e-discovery, the circuit concluded, is one that allows recovery of copying costs. Thus, e-discovery costs are recoverable only to the extent they fall within the statutory meaning of copying.
[W]e conclude that recoverable costs … are those costs necessary to duplicate an electronic document in as faithful and complete a manner as required by rule, by court order, by agreement of the parties, or otherwise. To the extent that a party is obligated to produce (or obligated to accept) electronic documents in a particular format or with particular characteristics intact (such as metadata, color, motion, or manipulability), the costs to make duplicates in such a format or with such characteristics preserved are recoverable. … But only the costs of creating the produced duplicates are included, not a number of preparatory or ancillary costs commonly incurred leading up to, in conjunction with, or after duplication.
Arthur Miller testifying this week.
In a post here last April, we discussed proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure designed to enhance cooperation and proportionality and to standardize sanctions. A preliminary draft of those rule changes has now been posted for public comment, with the commend period closing on Feb. 15. Before they could take effect, the rules would have to be approved by the Judicial Conference’s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Judicial Conference, and the Supreme Court. If the rules make it through all those hurdles, then they would take effect unless Congress acts to reject or modify them.
Given how far the process still has to go, it was notable that a subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary convened a hearing this week on the proposed rules package. The hearing, held Nov. 5 before the Subcommittee on Bankruptcy and the Courts, sought to address the question: “Will limiting the scope of civil discovery diminish accountability and leave Americans without access to justice?” Continue reading