Explore

Articles


Boring blog articles grown tiresome?

With the multitude of blog articles available on the market for consumption, choosing which ones to read can be challenging, let alone trying to stay awake while reading them.  As part of our ongoing educational content series, XDD provides a wide variety of engaging articles that provide legal professionals with a constant stream of valuable information to help improve their careers, teams and organizations. Coffee not included.

Interested in contributing to our article series or have an idea?  Let us know your thoughts and how you can help improve our customers EQ (eDiscovery Quotient) via our quick and easy contact form.

What TAR Process Results Are Objectionable?, Assisted Review Series Part 7
What TAR Process Results Are Objectionable?, Assisted Review Series Part 7

As we have just seen, process objections are supposed to be based on actual deficiencies in actual results. So, what results are deficient enough to be objectionable? We have previously discussed the academic studies showing that traditional human review is far from perfect and that technology-assisted review approaches can be at least as effective, if not more so, but that doesn’t really answer the question. How good is good enough?

Read More

When Is the Right Time for TAR Process Objections?, Assisted Review Series Part 6
When Is the Right Time for TAR Process Objections?, Assisted Review Series Part 6

We have seen in the cases where the decision of whether or not to use a TAR approach generally rests with the producing parties. Requesting parties cannot stop them from using a TAR approach if they wish to, or make them use a TAR approach if they don’t wish to. What if a requesting party has concerns, though, about the specifics of a producing party’s TAR process? When can TAR process objections be raised and what case law supports them?

Read More

Can You Be Compelled to Use TAR?, Assisted Review Series Part 5
Can You Be Compelled to Use TAR?, Assisted Review Series Part 5

Not long after da Silva Moore became the first case in which the use of TAR was judicially approved, Kleen Products became the first case in which a requesting party tried to compel a responding party to utilize a TAR approach. Since that time, numerous courts have addressed the question and have concluded that one party cannot compel another to use TAR – but a judge might direct its use in certain situations.

Read More

Because You Need to Know: Monthly News Round-Up for September 2020
Because You Need to Know: Monthly News Round-Up for September 2020

Our monthly legal eDiscovery news round-up for September 2020 features state rule changes, cybersecurity concerns, and continuing adaption to COVID-19, as well as new noteworthy cases, new useful publications, and a variety of new XDD educational webinars and blog articles.

Read More

Are You Allowed to Use TAR?, Assisted Review Series Part 4
Are You Allowed to Use TAR?, Assisted Review Series Part 4

The year after technology-assisted review first rose to prominence in eDiscovery, Monique da Silva Moore, et al., v. Publicis Groupe SA & MSL Group (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012) became the first case for judicial approval of TAR. Since then, numerous courts – both in the US, and abroad – addressed the same question and concluded that parties are allowed to use TAR approaches to meet their discovery obligations.

Read More

Applications, Aptitudes, and Effectiveness, Assisted Review Series Part 3
Applications, Aptitudes, and Effectiveness, Assisted Review Series Part 3

Document review for production is the primary application of TAR but not the only application. You now have the choice of TAR 1.0 or 2.0. Now that we have established a coherent framework of terms and concepts for TAR, let’s discuss the contexts TAR can be applied, the relative aptitudes of TAR 1.0 and TAR 2.0, and the general effectiveness of Technology-Assisted Review in eDiscovery.

Read More

Key TAR Terms and Concepts, Assisted Review Series Part 2
Key TAR Terms and Concepts, Assisted Review Series Part 2

TAR was already intimidating to practitioners back when it was just predictive coding. How do legal practitioners get a handle on Technology-Assisted Review key terms and concepts including workflows, mathematical approaches, indexes, maps and sampling. When leveraged successfully, a TAR process can evaluate and classify large volumes of ESI materials, use less time than human document review, reduce costs and generally achieve superior results.

Read More

Alphabet Soup: TAR, CAL, and Assisted Review, Assisted Review Series Part 1
Alphabet Soup: TAR, CAL, and Assisted Review, Assisted Review Series Part 1

TAR first rose to prominence in the legal industry around 2011 under the name predictive coding. Predictive coding largely was abandoned in favor of the more generic term TAR – or, sometimes, computer-assisted review (CAR). TAR and CAR have also joined by TAR 2.0 and by CAL (continuous active learning), while LSI and PLSA are joined by SVM and other new acronyms – creating an alphabet soup.

Read More

Because You Need to Know: Monthly News Round-Up for August 2020
Because You Need to Know: Monthly News Round-Up for August 2020

Our monthly legal eDiscovery news round-up for August 2020 features new privacy updates, new state regulatory updates, and continuing adaption to COVID-19, as well as new noteworthy cases, new useful publications, and a variety of new XDD educational content.

Read More

More from the Courts on Self-Collection, Self-Collection Part 5
More from the Courts on Self-Collection, Self-Collection Part 5

We’ve now seen in Leidig v. BuzzFeed and NDLON v. ICE that the risks and consequences of employing self-collection approaches are not merely hypothetical. One self-collection failure resulted in evidence preclusion, and the other resulted in substantial additional discovery. Let’s conclude our discussion of self-collection risks with a look at three more case examples.

Read More

The Courts on Self-Collection, Self-Collection Part 4
The Courts on Self-Collection, Self-Collection Part 4

The risks and consequences of employing self-collection approaches are not merely hypothetical. For many years, courts have highlighted those risks, have taken parties and their lawyers to task for their reliance on self-collection in the face of those risks, and have applied significant monetary and evidentiary sanctions for failures caused by taking those risks.

Read More

IT Collection Risks, Self-Collection Part 3
IT Collection Risks, Self-Collection Part 3

We’ve now seen the myriad ways that allowing custodians to collect their own materials can increase the risks of downstream issues and negative outcomes. But, what about having internal information technology personnel collect instead? While marginally lower risk than allowing custodians to collect their own materials, having IT carry out organization self-collection is still risky and, potentially, disruptive.

Read More

Whether you prefer email, text or carrier pigeons, we’re always available.

Discovery starts with listening.

(877) 545-XACT / or / Subscribe for Updates