Wednesday, May 23, 2012 from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM

Tonkon Torp, Conference Room 15B (Enter on 16th floor)

We’re working with more firms on Relativity than ever before.  We thought it would be a great idea to set up some quarterly trainings to cover everything from basic searching and coding to getting down and dirty with Analytics.  For our first session, we’ll be covering basic navigation, searching, filtering, coding/tagging, and anything else that comes up.  If there’s something you’ve been wondering about, let us know and we’ll be sure to address it.  Please register so we know how many to expect.

]]> http://streamlineimaging.com/2012/05/quarterly-relativity-training/feed/ 0 http://streamlineimaging.com/2012/05/survey-results/ http://streamlineimaging.com/2012/05/survey-results/#comments Thu, 10 May 2012 23:42:50 +0000 Susan http://streamlineimaging.com/?p=1252 [...]]]> The results are in! We recently surveyed over 200 lucky people in the Portland legal community on social media in Litigation.  We also wanted to see how you thought we were doing.  We were overwhelmed with the results and want to thank you for all the positive responses!

Just about 80% of people surveyed have used and are using some kind of social media in their litigation cases.  We expect to see this number grow.

Can you see us blushing from here?   We also asked how we were doing on service.  100% of responses say we’re providing better service than our competition.  As premier service and quality are our primary goals, we are proud of these results and continue to strive to make this just as relevant tomorrow as it is today.

Once you click on the link after you enter your email address, your browser will open the PDF in another tab.  Click on the save button to download the document.  Once open in Adobe Acrobat, you will see all the bookmarks to get you directly to the section that you are looking for.

List of Topics:

• Main Doc Review Layout
• Core Review Interface Layout
• Related Items Pane (Family Docs, Duplicates, Production History, Audit History)
• Personal Viewer Preferences
• Emailing Documents within the Review Team
• Viewing Produced Documents
• Editing/Coding Documents
• Making Redactions
• Keyboard Shortcuts
• Searching & Filtering
• Advanced & Saved Searches
• Mass Tagging Documents
• Exporting a Privilege Log (Or List of Documents)
• Printing Documents
• Batches (Checking in/out, viewing Documents)
• Analytics (Using Similar Documents, Clustering, Concept Searching)
• Viewer Errors, Troubleshooting

“A state judge in Virginia on Monday ordered that defendants in a case about a collapsed airplane hangar can use predictive coding, despite plaintiff’s objections that the technology is not as effective as purely human review…Chamblin’s order was in response to a Landow motion requesting either that predictive technology be allowed or that Global Aviation pay any additional costs associated with traditional review.”

‘Briggs’ and Emerging Standards on Government E-Discovery Obligations (Law.com)

“Following this jurisprudential development, more recently a working group comprised of court representatives and attorneys from the government and private sector issued detailed guidance concerning appropriate forms of ESI production in criminal discovery. Together, these developments provide much-needed guidance on production format and related best practices, and signal movement towards resolving a current gap between ESI production standards in civil and criminal cases.”

Cloud Solutions Can Make Sense for Modern Legal Review (Access Data)

“In today’s legal review process, the ability to quickly analyze data and gain insight into that data is what allows a law firm to differentiate itself and beat its opponents. However, in reality law firms are overwhelmed with the amount of data that must be searched, analyzed, and visualized before critical decisions can be made. Add to that the fact that client data is exponentially increasing and new technology is allowing the collection of almost any type of data, no matter the location or form, and you get massive amounts of data needing review.”

Courts Warming to Reliability Of Internet Archive Printouts As Evidence (JosephNYC.com)

“Footnote 9. Keystone also argues that the pictures are not sufficiently authenticated because Basalite has not offered evidence of the reliability of printouts from the Internet Archive…. For purposes of Keystone’s preliminary-injunction motion, the Court rejects the argument. The Internet Archive has existed since 1996, and federal courts have regularly accepted evidence from the Internet Archive.”

Document Review in 2025: ediscovery to infinity and beyond (Legal Technology Insider)

“E-discovery continues to evolve at the speed of light. With developing state and federal rules, new opinions from the bench, and a constant stream of technological innovations, law firms and corporate clients must evolve their practices to stay competitive. Of the many key e-discovery practices that are evolving, document review is currently undergoing rapid transformation. Fifteen years ago, practitioners were reviewing boxes of paper documents in dusty warehouses.  Law clerks were hired to sift through the firm’s files stored in the basement and to then discard past clients’ paper discovery files that were no longer needed.  Now in 2012, that outmoded relic that has been vehemently replaced with innovative technology that is fundamentally altering the manner in which document review is conducted. In fact, the roles played by technology and key personnel involved across the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) are being redefined as we speak.”

Facebook used in one of five family court cases (Adelaide Now)

“FACEBOOK pages are being used to discredit people in Family Court proceedings and one in five cases now feature photos or comments that have been posted online, lawyers say.

Family law experts say social media sites are a form of character record and spouses are filing information from Facebook with the court through affidavits to discredit the other party.”

Federal Court Approves The Use Of “Predictive Coding” Technology-Assisted Document Review (Metropolitan Corporate Counsel)

“2012 continues to deliver seminal decisions from New York courts on issues of first impression relating to electronic discovery. The latest landmark decision is from Southern District of New York Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, _ F. Supp. 2d _, No. 11-civ-1279 (ALC) (AJP), 2012 WL 607412 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012). In the Da SilvaMoore decision, for the very first time, a court has considered, and approved, the use of advanced document review software in place of more common approaches such as keyword searches or linear review by human reviewers. Predictive coding and technology-assisted review have been hot topics in the e-discovery field for the past few years due to their promise of dramatically lowering discovery costs, but adoption of new review techniques by litigants has been guarded due to the absence of any guidance from any court. This is the first time that any court has expressly indicated that its use is appropriate, and the decision opens the door to increased use of the technique, provided that suitable workflow and quality controls are put into place.”

“A Montgomery County judge has allowed a man claiming he was sucker-punched during a work-sponsored soccer game to investigate the Facebook page of his alleged attacker, ostensibly to find information to bolster his civil lawsuit…The decision brings the Law Weekly’s tally to five cases where a Pennsylvania judge denied discovery and four in which a Facebook probe was allowed.”

How social media is used in litigation (Rebekah Smith)

“‘A great deal of valuable information about individuals and corporations can be determined from what people put on their social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and blogs,’ says Rebekah Smith, CFFA, CPA, CVA, director of financial advisory services at GBQ Consulting LLC.”

Company’s Inadequate Preservation and Collection Efforts Require Company to Shoulder Costs of Forensic Analysis of Computers and Mirror-Imaging of Hard Drives (Kathy Trawinski)

“e-Lesson Learned: To fulfill the duty to preserve relevant evidence, companies must take a number of affirmative steps to preserve, search for, and collect ESI. Upon receiving a complaint, companies should take immediate action to preserve electronic data, and should issue a company-wide litigation hold. Simply circulating a litigation hold letter to a small number of employees is insufficient to fulfill the duty to preserve of evidence.”

Da Silva Moore + Kleen = It’s All About the Math (Karl Schieneman)

“The Da Silva Moore plaintiffs are comfortable that predictive coding works better than key word searching.  What they are not comfortable with is how they can be sure they received the relevant documents and that is what is at the heart of their debate over the size of the sampling to be done to validate the process.  TheKleen plaintiffs want predictive coding to be used because they know identifying key words in an antitrust case is really hard to do.  They believe their best chance to find the relevant ESI they hope to find is to use some form of predictive coding across a wide number of data sources and custodians.  The key theme here with both parties is a lack of comfort from parties receiving the ESI on what they are receiving and a desire to receive what they are entitled to.”

DOJ Guidelines for ESI in Federal Criminal Cases (BLLAWG)

“As of February 2012, the Department of Justice (in conjunction with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the Joint Working Group on Electronic Technology in the Criminal Justice System) has officially released a set of best practices for ESI discovery in federal criminal cases. These protocols were drafted and negotiated by JETWG over an 18 month period and will hopefully facilitate cost effective, efficient, and predictable ESI discovery. The rules will also provide a much needed framework for the e-discovery process which has, up until now, been left to individual courts and criminal lawyers. Especially in corporate and white collar investigations, the ESI that must be discovered is often overwhelming in both volume and complexity; the guidelines should help bring order to this chaos.”

“In Monique Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, Case No. 11-cv-01279 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012), U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York endorsed the use of predictive coding to locate electronically stored information in a document-intensive, employment discrimination case involving 3 million emails. This is the first case to date that endorses a protocol for the use of predictive coding to locate documents relevant to litigation in ESI.”

New Methods for Legal Search and Review (Ralph Losey)

“New systems of e-discovery are emerging that are designed for today’s digital world. Unlike most existing e-discovery systems, they are not mere adaptations of old paper discovery ways. The new methods use an entirely new collaborative approach and technologies, exemplified by predictive coding software. Although this paradigm shift in discovery is just starting, many of the contours of the new methods are already apparent.”

A Search Terms Gam (Josh Gilliland)

“Determining search terms can sink into a voyage on the Pequodhunting a white whale. If a party obsesses over search terms, they may find themselves quoting Captain Ahab as they sink in an over-inclusive ocean of electronically stored information.”

Disclosing Novel Document Review Methods (Robert Trenchard, Steven Berrent)

“Before the advent of large-scale e-discovery, lawyers had no need to disclose how they planned to review documents for responsiveness and privilege. Everyone knew there was only one way to do it. A human being looked at each record. But as e-discovery has mushroomed, new methods have been adopted to review large datasets without people personally examining every record. Such methods range from simple keyword searching, to concept grouping, to sophisticated “predictive coding.”^1″

eDiscovery History: A Look Back at Zubulake (Doug Austin)

“Those of us who have been involved in litigation support and discovery management for years are fully aware of the significance of the Zubulake case and its huge impact on discovery of electronic data.  Even if you haven’t been in the industry for several years, you’ve probably heard of the case and understand that it’s a significant case.  But, do you understand just how many groundbreaking opinions resulted from that case?  For those who aren’t aware, let’s take a look back.”

Keyword Search Terms: How to adequately argue for alternative search parameters (Mike Hamilton)

“Within early stages of litigation, to successfully negotiate and object to discovery parameters, such as keyword search terms, parties must have a legal justification AND provide adequate evidence to support their objection. Unsupported statements and concerns about producing “an unreasonable number of irrelevant results,” or that discovery parameters are not proportional to the matter are only conclusory statements.”

This is a constant question that comes up in the scope of document production.  Does the legal team want to keep families together or treat them as separate documents.  This article is a good reference and has supporting arguments for both sides of the debate.  Unfortunately, there appears to be no definitive case or ruling on the subject.

Printing ESI & Scanning It Is Not OK

“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and corresponding case law are abundantly clear that you cannot degrade searchable files.  Printing ESI and then scanning the paper as non-searchable PDF’s is simply not permitted by the discovery rules.”

Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis on Predictive Coding and Transparency in E-Discovery

Great interview with Ralph Losey on predictive coding.  His explanation of how analytics and predictive coding work  in understandable terms by relating it to iTunes’ Genius function is spot on.

Applying E-Discovery Best Practices to Cloud Computing

“According to the minutes of the mini-conference, attendees agreed that advancements in technology since the Supreme Court approved the e-discovery amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have led to new challenges in e-discovery and preservation. Included among those advancements is cloud computing.”

Live Blogging at LTNY: Session on Budgeting for E-Discovery

Some takeways from LegalTech New York 2012. “In this sesssion, key attributes were discussed that can reduce e-discovery costs and assist in litigation readiness for corporations, law firms and government entities.”

E-Discovery Judges in Charlotte: Post-CLE Summary (2 Parts)

“Judges Facciola, Grimm and Peck spoke on the most pressing issues facing practitioners today. Using the context of a mock case (and its attendant meet and confer and Rule 16 conferences) the panel analyzed best and worst practices, and looked to the future of litigation and government investigation in a post-ESI world.”

LegalTech Panel Examines E-Discovery Challenges in Europe

“In the discussion, “A GC’s Nightmare: A U.S. E-Discovery Request into Europe,” panelists from the U.S. and European Union membership countries laid out numerous examples of incorrect assumptions they have seen in multinational e-discovery cases — and the risks and problems resulting from them.”

“Judge Paul Grimm, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, is a thought leader and at the forefront of knowledge in the field of electronic discovery. Judge Grimm has authored multiple case opinions that have become the basis for rule changes to the rules of civil procedure. He continues to be an expert in the field and he graciously took some time to talk to Discovery Brain about his knowledge and experience.”

“…I looked into some of the issues associated with a fundamentally important area in the modern practice of civil litigation which is that discovery must be approached on a cooperative basis. That doesn’t mean that you give up meritorious argument or not have disputes, but it just means you argue over the things that are important. You cooperate on the things that are mutually beneficial to your clients. For example, look at keyword searching. If I give you just a list of keywords and tell you to go search them and you don’t have any input on that, then what’s likely to happen is you’re going to run a search that will have poor recall and precision rates that won’t produce helpful information, which will lead to disputes and further expenses. It’s much better that we cooperatively design a search methodology. It lowers costs, gets the materials produced faster and avoids motions where people run out of money. The need to cooperate is inherent in the rules of civil litigation. Those that advocate a confrontational approach to discovery for the sake of confrontation really do not understand what’s involved in the adversary system. That was emphasized in Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Services Co. decision. Thereafter my most recent discussed decision was the Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe Inc. case dealing with the duty to preserve.”

“Part of the entire evolution, I have become interested in the fact that in 2009 a series of attorney questionnaires from a variety of sources said federal litigation is too expensive and that in turn has led to my concern with how we can manage litigation so that it is proportional to what’s at issue in a case. This means you get the right amount of discovery so that the parties have fair discovery and nothing is hidden or lost, but you don’t waste money. In no system does it make sense that you spend $5M to resolve a case that’s worth $1M. With the volume of digital evidence out there and the number of people who have the same evidence in different locations, parties spend enormous amounts of money trying to figure out what you have before they can then even talk about settlement or trial. So the real challenge for the profession and for the courts is to make it so that we don’t become so expensive that people can’t afford to come here.”

Susan Wheeler, Streamline Imaging’s Director of Discovery Services, has been recognized as a Relativity Certified Administrator by kCura Corporation, developers of the industry leading document review and e-Discovery platform.

RCA certification is granted to select individuals based on their experience in managing Relativity in the field, plus a rigorous examination that tests both knowledge of Relativity and the ability to use the application in practical, hands-on exercises.  In addition to recognition of their expertise Certified Administrators also receive direct access to second level kCura support, which enhances their ability to leverage Relativity as a solution for clients.

RCAs are recognized as Relativity experts. Service providers with RCAs on staff are recognized to assure their clients that cases will be managed by a professional who understands the full capabilities of Relativity.

Streamline Imaging is a Relativity Premium Hosting Partner of kCura Corporation.