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. Continue reading
“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.) Continue reading
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 Continue reading
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 Continue reading
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.
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. Continue reading
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.”
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.” Continue reading
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.
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. Continue reading