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?
Email threading is a primary tool that professionals use to organize their day-to-day communications, yet it is not universally used during eDiscovery. Learn when email threading is a must and how to overcome some common obstacles to the process in this presentation.
On September 7th and 8th, 2017, CDS’s Daniel Diette, Esq. and Jeff Salling, Esq. attended the Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies’ Technology Assisted Review (TAR) Best Practices conference. This invitation-only event brought together nearly 100 eDiscovery experts from law firms, corporations, government agencies, and educational institutions to help develop guidelines on best practices for the use of TAR.
Culling data can be an extremely helpful tool when trying to reduce your dataset to a manageable size…The process involves utilizing various techniques in tandem to remove as many documents as possible from a collection before processing the data and embarking on the costly and time consuming task of reviewing the data. Its value lies in saving both time and money. EDiscovery service providers offer culling at a cost significantly lower than that of processing data, so cost savings can appear early on if you are left with a significantly smaller amount of data to process. This assumes you are able to cull out enough data pre-processing to justify the cost of culling.