Prior to Relativity 7.5, identifying the root cause of an infrastructure problem in your environment could be a bit of a search-and-destroy mission. Infrastructure managers could comb through event logs and performance metrics for each server, but sometimes the problem might still be a mystery.
Several members of our advice team are experts in custom development, helping our partners and clients build applications and integrations to extend Relativity’s functionality. To highlight some of the unique ways our users are taking advantage of the platform, we interviewed a few of our partners and clients who have worked with custom development to help create some more complex applications.
We sat down with president and CEO Juan Ramirez from NSerio. The enthusiastic software company focuses on building simple solutions to meet complex needs. With a heavy emphasis on creating applications for Relativity, NSerio recently put out their Briefcase application to view, update, and annotate Relativity documents offline. To obtain NSerio’s applications, please contact them directly.
Last month, we wrote about Relativity’s compatibility with the newest Microsoft releases in this post. We wanted to follow up to quickly outline a new release of Internet Explorer 10 and its compatibility with Relativity.
There is currently a preview version of IE10 available for Windows 7, but in coming weeks, Microsoft is planning to release the full version of IE10 for Windows 7. When released, it will be automatically installed to Windows 7 workstations via Windows Update.
In a blog post from early last year, e-discovery expert Ralph Losey said, “anyone can find relevant documents; find me key evidence.”
Differentiating between relevant and hot documents is an integral part of the review process. As we were building Relativity 7.5, we knew we wanted to help clients streamline their issue coding with Relativity Assisted Review. As is always the case with Assisted Review, the ability to discern between potentially responsive documents and key documents would require a combination of technology, process, and reporting.
When our team sat down to build the Relativity 7.5 feature set for our processing solution, the goal was to solve a specific problem for our end users—particularly with processing administrators in mind. Even against the backdrop of the wider litigation support industry, these administrators are often faced with tasks that come with limited timelines and big demands.
Although we often focus on workflow tips on this blog, we thought it might be helpful to address a few Relativity compatibility questions we’ve received regarding Internet Explorer 10, as Microsoft released new software and hardware that exclusively uses IE10 back in November.
Jay Leib: What trends are you seeing in the legal industry right now related to computer-assisted review? What’s the temperature of the market?
David Horrigan: The legal industry is absolutely much more receptive than it was a year ago. The feedback we receive indicates that more and more e-discovery requests for proposals are making specific references to computer-assisted review technologies, such as predictive coding. Much of it started in February with judicial acceptance of computer-assisted review in the Da Silva Moore case, which gave many lawyers the confidence to explore the technologies without being accused of trying to use voodoo science. Of course, the underlying technologies have existed outside the legal field for years, and legal acceptance grew during the year in a progression of cases, including Kleen Products, Global Aerospace, and In Re: Actos. I think a really interesting development was the October court hearing in the EORHB case—known by many as the Hooters case—where the court told the parties that, if they didn’t want to use computer-assisted review, they needed to show cause why not. We went a long way in a few months: a court pushing the technology is a big step past merely allowing it.
Big data—all of the electronically stored information being created in the enterprise, both structured and unstructured—has become a term ubiquitous in the media throughout 2012 and continues to be at the top of the enterprise’s mind as we close out this year.
For the past two years, we’ve asked a consulting firm, Strait & Associates, to help us understand how big data has impacted the Relativity universe. How has this trend been affecting our end users? The analyses demonstrated the following.
- Comparing the 50 largest cases housed in Relativity, the median case size grew from 960,000 documents in 2009 to 9.2 million in 2012.
- Comparing the 100 largest cases housed in Relativity, the median case size grew from 520,000 documents in 2010 to 5.9 million in 2012.
Several members of our advice@kCura team are experts in custom development, and they’re excited to see our partners and clients building applications and integrations to extend Relativity’s functionality. To highlight some of the unique ways our users are taking advantage of the platform, we interviewed a few of our partners and clients who have created some more complex applications.
Taking advantage of the Developer Showcase at Relativity Fest 2012, we sat down with Mark Dingle, founder of London-based LitSavant Ltd. Mark—who is also a Relativity Independent Consultant—established LitSavant in 2010, following more than a decade of experience in the litigation support industry. As their flagship product, the LitSavant Conformity Engine is a Relativity Ecosystem application that simplifies the process for designing and implementing custom logic in a Relativity environment. For more information about the Conformity Engine, contact LitSavant directly.
Many clients approach us with questions about Relativity Assisted Review. Depending on their experience with the technology, folks might want to know how it works, find out if their case warrants the use of it, or learn best practices for identifying good example documents, among other questions.
Jay Leib—our chief strategy officer and resident Relativity Assisted Review expert—recently wrote a guest article for Legal Technology Insider that takes a look at what is needed upfront to successfully implement Assisted Review. Specifically, the article touches on seven expectations that should be carefully considered before and during the process. We developed these expectations over time based on the hands-on experience of our clients.