Electronic discovery is a data-driven, technology-dependent endeavor, but the most vital, valuable component rests entirely with human beings. Attorneys, project managers and litigation support professionals are responsible for the crucial coding decisions, productions and presentations that support or refute the legal arguments in a matter.
Thought Leadership and Industry Trends
Mastery over eDiscovery, the legal discovery process in which relevant electronically stored information is identified, preserved, collected, processed, reviewed and produced between parties in a legal proceeding, is becoming a crucial competency for the modern practice of law.
Data Intelligence in the context of eDiscovery can have many different meanings. Defined broadly, data intelligence is the quest to organize, analyze, understand, and transform raw data into a format that can tell a story and inform critical legal decision making.
For most attorneys and litigation support professionals, their first look at potentially relevant electronically stored information (ESI) occurs after data has been preserved, collected, processed and loaded into a review platform. This crucial stage in any eDiscovery matter helps inform review strategies, the need for further collection and ultimately, production deadlines.
The challenge for any legal professional approaching a complex discovery matter is to parse through the mountains of potentially relevant electronically stored information to gain insight and build a narrative that supports their arguments with evidence.
Dan Diette examines the recent decision from In Re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation and its implications on TAR in discovery.
Following our recent breakfast seminar on Continuous Active Learning (CAL), CDS’ Mark Anderson and Bill Belt share their conclusions.
To support a litigation case involving breach of contract, CDS was hired to deploy technology assisted review capabilities in order to meet a tight production deadline.
Early Case Assessment (ECA) refers to a variety of tools and workflows for investigating and quickly learning about your data as it relates to eDiscovery and potential litigation.
Most eDiscovery requires redaction of information before it can be produced. Thanks to increasing regulations safeguarding personal information, the amount of redaction required is growing.
Predictive coding has become increasingly prevalent in eDiscovery. Although courts have ruled that parties are allowed to use the technology, they have also recognized that litigants aren’t required to use it. However, once a litigant has decided to employ predictive coding, the question is to what extent courts should permit discovery into, and allow opposing counsel, to re-examine and second guess a litigant’s TAR process?