Author Archives: David Cochran
Processing Bloomberg® email and chat (instant messaging) data for review is a complex task. Many vendors have attempted it and, based upon feedback from our clients, most of them have problems dealing with the way Bloomberg® exports the data. Typical standard Bloomberg® exports from third party software platforms makes the processing much more difficult and less accurate. Planet Data has supported the text and XML versions of Bloomberg® email and chat (also called Instant Bloomberg or IB) for the past seven years within our proprietary Exego® platform. Our internal development team created the Planet Data customized Bloomberg® support and we … Continue reading
Foreign language data is more prevalent in ediscovery today due to the nature of cross-border litigation. The ability to identify different languages within a collection during ESI processing of the data is rare. Traditionally, you would need to know that there is foreign language data within your collection, and also know exactly where it is. If you don’t, the only way to identify this data would be when it appears in a document during a search for other terms. Subsequently, the decision would then have to be made whether or not that foreign language data needs to be translated – … Continue reading
Today’s budgets do not allow for large amounts of data to be reviewed. At Legaltech I had the pleasure of speaking with ALM’s Zach Warren about just that, and the recent re-focus on ECA/pre-review strategies. We also discussed the sudden shift back to the early case assessment topic and why it’s making headlines again. ECA is finally seen as it should be – as more of a pre-review data reduction tool than a calculator. There are more advanced features available in good ECA platforms now than ever before. Specifically, intuitive interfaces that the legal team can easily use; data that … Continue reading
It’s a pretty basic proposition. Reduce data sizes earlier in a matter and you will save money. It’s that simple. But, as the recent presidential debates make clear, there is always nuance to every message. Cost avoidance, by implementing a data mapping process prior to custodial interviews, ensures that the legal team will know where data resides. This reduces potentially non-relevant data prior to actually collecting it. Then, applying a targeted data collection process reduces the data even further. So, the data has now been reduced through interviews and collection techniques. What’s next? There has been great discussion on how … Continue reading
We frequently – or should I say regularly – get cases with huge amounts of Lotus Notes® data. Lotus Notes® has always been an issue and typical processing would involve converting the data to .PSTs. Planet Data recognizes all the challenges associated with Lotus Notes® and avoids these problems by processing Lotus Notes® data natively, and has been since 2005. Our methodology recently helped a new client achieve a 94% reduction of data – and ultimately a significant reduction of review costs – by using Exego Processing and Early Case Assessment. How does Exego processLotus Notes® data? Planet Data’s Exego … Continue reading
2013 was the year of the project manager. Actually, each year should be known as the “Year of the Project Manager.” Whether working at a law firm, corporate legal department or at a supplier, these professionals ensure the work will be done, and done well. Project manager’s are not always paid their dues, but with complex “Big Data” requirements, (including, success or failure of e-discovery collection, review and production, information governance implications, managed review requirements, focused data collections, etc.) we all rely on their skills and experience. Project Managers are the unsung heroes that work 80 hours per week behind … Continue reading
“Man vs. Food” is like “Man vs. Machine” in discovery management. In the television show, “Man vs. Food”, the common denominator is the “man” and the variable is the “food”. Who wins depends on the amount and type of food. In discovery management, the common denominator is the “legal professional” and the variable is the “machine” and the outcome can vary drastically. A machine-only driven process assumes that the software will be able to achieve everything a client wants with limited use of the legal professional. The lure of this approach is that costs will be reduced. But is this … Continue reading
I’ve heard many say that today’s New Legal Model is TAR (technology assisted review) and that this component will, by itself, dramatically reduces legal costs. I think it goes much deeper than just TAR. Today’s data sets are large, very large in most cases. The goal is to find the documents that matter, quicker, earlier in the process and less expensively. This sets up a process where you know from inception where the data was, whose it was, how it was collected, how it was processed, how it was culled and filtered, and then utilizing TAR, the lawyers can then … Continue reading
At the core of any litigation today is the concept of understanding electronic data: where it is located, how it is managed, and how it can be accessed.
In the past, the litigation team consisted of inside and outside counsel, the business unit manager and outside suppliers. The legal responsibility for the management of a company’s data in most businesses falls squarely on the shoulders of the Information Manager. Thus, if a company is ever entrenched in a legal battle, the Information Manager needs to be part of the team and must be prepared to take the stand. Because of this person’s unique ability to discuss the internal systems that generate the data in question, an Information Manager will almost inevitably make any trial attorney’s short list.
Legal review is the largest cost component of a discovery management project. Corporations understand that this is part of the new eDiscovery world and want this cost to decrease – – Makes sense and is totally logical. There have been countless panels, articles, blogs, advertisements, and debates around how this can be achieved using software alone, stating that its use is the only method that can ultimately lower the document review costs in litigation. If this were true, then how data is collected, processed and culled before it gets to that point would be a waste of time. Of course … Continue reading