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
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.
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 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. 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. 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.