Why is Privilege Review so Expensive and What Can We Do About It?

Posted on by
Reply

We all know that document review is generally very expensive.  In fact, in the often quoted Da Silva Moore case, the defendants stated that they expected their review costs to be about $5/document.  On a 500,000 document case, that’s $2.5 million dollars!  With privilege review being one of the most expensive types of document review, it seems a likely target for cost reduction measures.  But, how do you do so without risking waiver?  There are technologies out there that can help. Continue reading →

Lighthouse Adds Zoom to its Offerings

Posted on by
Reply

Last month we were among the first eDiscovery service providers to add Equivio’s Zoom to our service offerings. So far, it has been a fantastic augmentation to our ReviewSmart (Lighthouse’s proprietary Technology Assisted Review) product. Our internal experts, led by a lawyer with a Master of Science in Computational Linguistics, can leverage Zoom’s capabilities to dramatically reduce our clients’ review costs while maintaining defensibility. In fact, we are currently using it to reduce a client’s costs in a large multi-language matter. Continue reading →

Technology Assisted Review—The Great Equalizer

Posted on by
Reply

With all the buzz about Technology Assisted Review (“TAR”) lately ( also known as predictive coding tools, such as ReviewSmart, Equivio’s Relevance and kCura’s Relativity Assisted Review), I noticed it’s often large companies and big law firms who are asking about it.  You may be saying, “well of course, they are the ones with the huge document productions.”  Small to medium size firms should take note – TAR can be an unbelievably useful tool for these firms, especially those who typically deal with multiple litigations in the 50k-150k document production range.  Why should small and medium firms pay attention to TAR?  Three big reasons:  time, capacity and price. Continue reading →

Is Technology Assisted Review Dead?

Posted on by
Reply

Right on the heels of Judge Peck’s widely read and seemingly watershed ruling in Da Silva Moore is news that his ruling is being appealed.  Will a successful appeal mean the end of the using machine learning tools in e-discovery? While it is too early to tell whether the appeal will be successful, one thing does seem clear: even if the appeal is successful, it will not be a harbinger of the death of technology assisted review tools. Continue reading →

Judge Peck’s Roadmap for Technology Assisted Review

Posted on by
Reply

Judge Peck’s recent opinion in Da Silva Moore highlights technology assisted review’s growing importance in the e-discovery toolkit, and offers a helpful roadmap for applying this process in future cases.

In analyzing whether technology assisted review was appropriate in this case, Judge Peck relied on scientific research and previous opinions to show the superiority of technology assisted review to alternatives like keyword searching and linear manual review. In fact, he challenged those who object to technology assisted review to come up with a better methodology. Continue reading →

Lighthouse Launches New Brand, New Products For 2012

Posted on by
Reply

After 16 years, Lighthouse Document Technologies will now be called Lighthouse eDiscovery. The updated brand also introduces the SmartSeries of services – a set of services designed to leverage technologies and expertise to eliminate up to half of a client’s spend on eDiscovery.

“The updating of the Lighthouse brand is the culmination of months of work focused on the development of innovative solutions for our clients,” said Brian McManus, Lighthouse’s Managing Partner. “The industry is moving quickly to address the need to reduce the mountain of data being created by corporations to a manageable level for eDiscovery. The best innovations will be those that attack the most expensive and time-consuming aspects of the discovery process. The Lighthouse SmartSeries represent a large step forward in addressing this issue.”

Check out the new site: www.lhediscovery.com.

Technology Assisted Review: Five Tips on Getting the Most Out of TAR

Posted on by
Reply

Although Technology Assisted Review (“TAR”) has been discussed at length over the last 14 months, many folks are still just getting started with the technology.  As a computational linguist with an eDiscovery background, I thought I would share my top five tips on getting the most out of technology-assisted review. Continue reading →

What Should Corporations Demand from eDiscovery Providers in 2012?

Posted on by
Reply

Many January blog postings focus on the 2012 predictions.  Rather than further opining
on what several brilliant writers (here, here, and here) have already discussed—I thought I would skip the predictions this year.  I’m not sure that clairvoyance is my strongest skill anyway.

Instead, this blog will focus on what clients should demand from their service providers in 2012. Continue reading →

Same Data, Multiple Cases: The Trouble with Data Reuse

Posted on by
Reply

Why Would I Reuse Data?

Simply put—to save money. Reusing attorney decisions and other work across cases can lead to huge cost savings for corporations.  The three biggest cost savings involve leveraging privilege decisions, leveraging responsiveness decisions, and reusing production images. I will explain each in turn. Continue reading →

Privilege and Confidentiality in the Electronic Age—Three Traps to Avoid Waiver of Privilege

Posted on by
Reply

Attorney client and work product privileges became much more complicated in the electronic age.  Not only was there significantly more data to review to determine whether privilege existed, but there were also a plethora of new ways to communicate—emails, text, social media, etc.  These “new” issues raised by the electronic age caused heartburn for many lawyers.  Following adoption of Federal Rule of Evidence 502, which expanded the protection provided by claw-back provisions, many lawyers breathed a sigh of relief, thinking they had a safety net that would allow them to avoid waiver issues associated with production of electronic data.  While it’s true that the claw-back protections, expanded in scope in Federal Rule of Evidence 502, afford greater protection against inadvertent waiver, there are other traps awaiting the “information age” attorneys. Continue reading →