In today’s corporate landscape, data diversity means no two cases are the same. However, some reasonable predictions can be made based on the type of action or company at play—especially when it comes to the use of analytics—to support faster case strategizing. Ahead of your next e-discovery project, consider these best practices to help you better support your client and case team’s unique circumstances.
As we gear up for Relativity Fest this October, we wanted to feature these tips for professionals in e-discovery, which were inspired by our Women in Legal Technology luncheon at last year's show. It's among our most-viewed posts on The Relativity Blog, and we're proud to give it the spotlight again. Don't forget to register for this year's show to attend the 2016 panel of inspiring women. All are welcome!
At Relativity Fest 2015, we held a “Women in Legal Technology” luncheon, where three panelists from Millnet, Shepherd Data Services, and Troutman Sanders shared the milestones that paved their careers in e-discovery. When we asked attendees if we should host the event again next year, a resounding “Yes!” filled the room.
Call us impatient, but we didn’t want to wait a whole year to hear more from the brilliant women who make up this industry. So, we reached out to a few friends for their advice on working and getting started in e-discovery.
In honor of ILTACON 2016, which kicks off August 28, we’d like to share an article originally published in ILTA’s Peer to Peer magazine. The article, authored by kCura’s David Horrigan, received ILTA’s 2015-2016 Outstanding Vendor-Contributed Magazine Article award.
If you're attending ILTACON, check out a session based in part on the legal research in this article: Business and Legal Aspects of Mobile, Social, and Emerging Technologies. Moderated by David, the panel will feature Judge Andrew Peck, Ari Kaplan, and Ed McAndrew of Ballard Spahr LLP.
Henry Ford’s great-grandson was explaining how his company’s cars could meet the demand for mobility, but what is important about minivans and Mustangs is even more important for corporate technology.
Since hitting the market, Pokémon GO has been the subject of many an editorial—covering everything from sociological concerns over the game’s ethics to culinary recommendations for the gamer on the go. Here’s our take.
So what has everyone had to say? Let’s take a look at the industry’s thoughts on Pyrrho and the lasting impact it’s already having on e-discovery—and get some first-hand perspectives from the practitioners behind the case.
“When people hear the word ‘analytics,’ they get intimidated because it’s perceived as being such a technical step,” says Sharri Wilner, litigation technology manager at Reed Smith LLP. “But if you break it down into its components and understand how it’s actually designed to aid you as a tool, you’re going to embrace it.”
So let’s do it. Let’s break down analytics, starting with three little features that pay off big and just so happen to share one thing in common: they require absolutely zero user input, making them the perfect starting point for even the most novice of the analytics novices.
That doesn’t mean formal, ongoing education isn’t important; in fact, our team has learned it makes us more successful in more ways than one.
Studies of resilience focus on how we respond to both “environmental” threats—problems that are chronic and less intense but no less difficult—as well as “acute” threats that cause shorter bursts of intense adversity or trauma.
"The case law has developed to the point that it is now black letter law that where the producing party wants to utilize TAR for document review, courts will permit it." – US Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck, March 2, 2015
When Judge Peck wrote those words last year in Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., 306 F.R.D. 125, 127 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), some thought it would be carte blanche for using technology-assisted review (TAR) in any case.
Well, not so fast.
This article, written by kCura’s David Horrigan, was published previously in Legaltech News.
We’ve always been skeptical of attempts to use the 1985 Blair and Maron study to argue that keyword searches are only 20 percent accurate. However, keyword searching does have its limits, and the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision last week in Xiong v. Knight Trans. shows those limits apply to e-discovery of social media as well.