Catalyst celebrated the opening of its new Korea office with a reception Oct. 24 at the Seoul Palace Hotel. The reception was attended by some two dozen industry professionals, including attorneys and Catalyst vendor partners. Catalyst staff members pictured below are John Tredennick, founder and CEO; David M. Sannar, vice president of international development for the Asia region; Youngsoo Park, director of the Korea office; and Sohyeon Kim, a staff member in the Korea office.
(Click any image for a larger view.)
Want to know whether technology-assisted review will save you time and money in your e-discovery matter? Well, now there’s an app for that.
Catalyst’s new Predict ROI app lets you calculate the savings in time and money you can expect from using Catalyst’s TAR platform, Insight Predict, instead of traditional linear review.
The app is based on the Web version of our ROI Calculator, which we introduced earlier this year. To use it, you enter basic information about your review project, including the total number of documents and the hourly billing rates of your first-pass and second-pass reviewers.
Using a typical yield curve, the app then estimates your savings. Calculations are based on your expected results using Catalyst’s proprietary method of TAR, Predictive Ranking, and the platform Catalyst developed to apply it, Insight Predict.
The app is free and is compatible with iPhones, iPads and iPod touch devices running iOS 7.0 or later.
As mentioned here yesterday and as covered in Law Technology News, Catalyst sponsored a panel discussion at the offices of Kirkland & Ellis in New York last week, TAR for the Real World: Practical Problems, Pragmatic Solutions.
Moderated by Law Technology News Editor-in-Chief Monica Bay, the panel featured Jason Baron, of counsel at Drinker, Biddle & Reath; Clifton Dutton, senior vice president and director of strategies and e-discovery at AIG Legal Operations Center; Conor Crowley of Crowley Law Office; John Tredennick, Catalyst’s founder and CEO; and Jeremy Pickens, senior research scientist at Catalyst.
Below are the slides from the panel. Additional materials given out during the panel can be found here.
“Technology assisted review is here to stay — and it has a future beyond e-discovery.”
Conor Crowley, Monica Bay, John Tredennick, Clifton Dutton, Jason Baron and Jeremy Pickens.
So writes Law Technology News reporter Victor Li in his report on the Catalyst-sponsored panel in New York last week, TAR for the Real World: Practical Problems, Pragmatic Solutions.
“Focusing mainly on how TAR can save litigants a tremendous amount of money, as well as explaining the accuracy of the process itself, the panel was directed towards true believers as well as those uninitiated in the world of TAR,” Li’s report continued. “Additionally, the panelists looked ahead at possible uses of TAR other than e-discovery.”
The panel, which was moderated by Law Technology News Editor-in-Chief Monica Bay, featured Jason Baron, of counsel at Drinker, Biddle & Reath (and former director of litigation at the National Archives); Clifton Dutton, senior vice president and director of strategies and e-discovery at AIG Legal Operations Center; Conor Crowley of Crowley Law Office; Catalyst founder and CEO John Tredennick; and Jeremy Pickens, senior research scientist at Catalyst. The event was hosted by the New York office of Kirkland & Ellis.
Read Li’s full report of the panel at Law Technology News: Technology Assisted Review Isn’t Perfect, but It’s Here to Stay.
An attempt by defendants to shift their costs to the plaintiff for searching electronically stored information has been denied by a federal magistrate judge in New York.
In Novick v. AXA Network LLC, the defendants argued that they were required to conduct searches that were excessive, duplicative and burdensome. They contended that, under the cost-shifting standard articulated in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, the plaintiff should be required to pay the $41,000 they incurred in conducting the search.
But U.S. Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox disagreed, concluding that the defendants never got past the threshold issue under Zubulake — establishing that the data was kept in an inaccessible format.
“Thus, under the Zubulake standard, the defendants failed to show that cost-shifting is appropriate because they did not establish that the production at issue was unduly burdensome or expensive, that is, that the data were kept in an inaccessible format,” Judge Fox wrote. Continue reading
My home base of Massachusetts has become the latest state to adopt rules governing the discovery of electronically stored information in civil cases. The new rules, which the Supreme Judicial Court adopted on Sept. 24 and which take effect on Jan. 1, 2014, borrow heavily from the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, from the Federal Rules of Evidence, and from the 2007 Uniform Rules Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information developed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
John Adams Courthouse in Boston, home to the Supreme Judicial Court.
The changes come as amendments to the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure and are applicable to all trial courts in the state. The purpose of the new rules, according to the Reporter’s Notes, was to craft a process that would address four major points:
- Enable the parties and the court to deal with e-discovery early in the litigation, including the format for production of ESI.
- Address how to handle ESI that is “inaccessible.”
- Recognize that privileged information may be inadvertently disclosed in the context of e-discovery and provide a remedy for such disclosure.
- Provide protection where ESI is lost by virtue of the “good-faith operation of an electronic information system.” Continue reading
If 2012 was the year in which technology-assisted review (TAR) came into its own, then 2013 is the year in which TAR is adapted to the realities of modern litigation. In the real world of e-discovery review, challenges come not just from the explosion of data, but also from the constraints imposed by rolling collections, tight deadlines, and the need to start review right now.
This will be the topic Oct. 10 in New York City as a panel of e-discovery experts address the tough questions that don’t get answered in introductory programs on TAR. This free luncheon program, TAR for the Real World: Practical Problems, Pragmatic Solutions, moderated by Law Technology News Editor-in-Chief Monica Bay, will address:
- How do I deal with real world problems like rolling uploads, endless random documents and the need to wait for an expert?
- How do I decide when I have enough responsive documents? What are the courts requiring?
- How do I know if the black box worked? What kind of proof do I need?
- What role do magistrates play and how much transparency is required?
- How much money can I save over linear review? What kinds of cases are suitable? Continue reading
Here is a conference worth considering: The first-ever Innovate Conference brings together a who’s who of speakers to explore various aspects of technology and the law, including e-discovery, information security, privacy and social media. The two-day conference, which will be held Oct. 17 and 18 in Winter Park, Fla., is presented by IT-Lex, a not-for profit organization committed to bridging the gap between technology and the law.
Of particular note to e-discovery professionals are panels such as:
- “Predicting Predictive Coding,” in which noted e-discovery professionals Jason Baron, Maura Grossman and Ralph Losey discuss the future of predictive coding.
- “E-Discovery and Due Process,” in which U.S. Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola, retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Nan R. Nolan, Anthony Mendenhall and Kenneth J. Withers will discuss whether the producer-pays system of discovery in the U.S. violates procedural due process.
- “Clawbacks, Cooperation, and Competence,” in which Judges Facciola and Nolan join Ralph C. Losey, Tom O’Connor and Florida Magistrate Lawrence H. Kolin to offer pointers on on clawbacks and cooperation. Continue reading
What is Predictive Ranking and how does it differ from predictive coding and other forms of technology-assisted review? In this video interview recorded by Ari Kaplan at the recent ILTA conference in Las Vegas, Steve d’Alencon, Catalyst’s vice president of marketing, explains how Catalyst’s Predictive Ranking technology and its Insight Predict product are unique within the e-discovery market.
If you are among those attending the annual conference this week of the International Legal Technology Association, you could have a shot at winning $100 cash on the spot and other technology products — and also learn how Catalyst’s Insight Predict gives you the power to succeed with e-discovery search and review like no other predictive coding tool.
ILTA attendees who wear a Catalyst #GetThePower pin and are “discovered” by Catalyst spotters roaming the exhibit hall and other conference venues may win $100 cash on the spot. Attendees can double their chances of winning by tweeting “#GetThePower at #ILTA13″ during the conference.
Click to Tweet: #GetThePower at #ILTA13 from @CatalystSecure http://tinyurl.com/kt43mga #ediscovery #SaaS #ESI #cloud Continue reading