Category: Tools

Native files refer to electronically stored information (ESI) stored in the format originally used, without conversion to TIFF, PDF or other paginated formats for review. Examples are Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, or email. Whether ESI should be produced and reviewed in native format can be a controversial issue in the e-Discovery arena and opinions of its appropriateness vary among experts.

Increasing volumes of electronically stored information (ESI) in litigation have created the need for faster and more effective review procedures, software, and systems. Larger cases mean that ‘eyes on’ linear review of all documents just isn’t possible sometimes.

Newer scalable cloud computing allows firms to access substantial processing and review capacity when needed, at a fraction of traditional costs. When properly addressed, security increases in a cloud environment. This is a result of dedicated security staff, locked down data centers, data center certifications, full data encryption, and overall best practices security and confidentiality.

Emails and their attachments represent an increasingly significant portion of ESI (Electronically Stored Information) collections and for good reason, too. The hundreds of billions of emails that are sent daily paint a comprehensive picture of our personal and professional lives, so it is no wonder that litigators must thoroughly and effectively review these collections for relevant case material.

As document productions have ballooned in size, determining if a production is adequate has become increasingly difficult. The days of judges and magistrates turning a blind eye to bad discovery are over. So plaintiffs and defendants increasingly need to know if productions are adequate and defensible, or instead are riddled with obvious data holes.

With the explosion of electronic documents and electronic stored information in modern complex litigation, the how and why of eDiscovery processing has become increasingly important. When done effectively, large document collections can be defensibly reduced, made fully searchable, and normalized to an easily reviewable format to speed and ease document review.

Some cases contain a confusing multitude of parties, data custodians, potential deponents, third-party subpoena targets. Keeping track of who’s who can be a challenge. Learn best practices for how to organize and use as a basis for effective eDiscovery, depositions and case chronologies.

One of the more challenging consequences associated with growing ESI volumes in litigation is the increasing frequency and variety of foreign language documents. As business has become more international, so has litigation.

The growing trend of increasingly large, complex data collections and reviews has caused both the time and dollar cost of discovery to explode. This is especially true when attempting to address large volumes of electronically stored information (ESI) with outdated software, systems and workflows.

Plaintiffs and defendants face unique challenges during discovery. A central difference is asynchronous data; plaintiffs have had fewer data collection concerns while defendants have had to manage complex collection and production of vast ESI stores.

Technology assisted review (TAR), also known as predictive coding and computer assisted review, has become a frequently used tool to complete large document reviews quickly and cost efficiently. The promise of fast, accurate computer-assisted coding as a practical solution to increasingly massive collections is encouraging, but understanding various vendor approaches can be confusing and overwhelming.

Whether you are a litigation services provider or internally managing litigation support functions within a law firm or corporate legal department, ESI processing deadlines can often exceed capacity. In order to increase internal capacity, past options have included the purchase of additional processing software licences and local hardware, as well as increased staffing, to marginally increase throughput and meet demand.