Explore
Grading Papers: Measuring Human Review, Testing Classifiers Series Part 3

Just as a search or a TAR tool is making a series of binary classification decisions, so too are your human reviewers, and the quality of those reviewers’ decisions can be assessed in a similar manner to how you assessed the quality of a search classifier. Depending on the scale of your review project, employing these assessment methods can be more efficient and informative.

Read More

Show Your Work: Contingency Tables and Error Margins, Testing Classifiers Series Part 2

Sampling can be used to test your search classifiers – whether keyword searches, TAR software, or other tools – by calculating their recall (efficacy) and precision (efficiency). Doing so requires a previously-reviewed control set, contingency tables, and some simple math.

Read More

Pop Quiz: How Do You Test a Search?, Testing Classifiers Series Part 1

Beyond estimating prevalence, there are other opportunities to replace informal sampling of unknown reliability with formal sampling of precise reliability. Imagine iteratively refining searches for your own use, or negotiating with another party about which searches should be used, armed with precise, reliable information about their relative efficacy. Using sampling to test classifiers can facilitate this.

Read More

Red Hots, Hot Docs, and the Ones that Got Away, Estimating Prevalence Series Part 3

Now that we understand the necessary sampling concepts, let’s apply those concepts to our candy contest and figure out how many red hots we think are in the jellybean jar. In order to do so, we will need to identify our sampling frame, select our desired confidence level, and select our desired confidence interval.

Read More

Key Sampling Concepts for Winning the Candy Contest, Estimating Prevalence Series Part 2

In order to use sampling to estimate how many red hots are mixed into the jellybean jar, we need to understand some basic sampling concepts, including: sampling frame, prevalence, confidence level, and confidence interval, as well as how each affects required sample size.

Read More

Finding out How Many Red Hots are in the Jellybean Jar, Estimating Prevalence Series Part 1

Despite years of discussion in the eDiscovery industry about the power and importance of sampling techniques, many practitioners remain unfamiliar with what they can accomplish with them and when, outside of TAR, they might do so.  There are opportunities across the phases of an eDiscovery project to replace guesses based on anecdotal evidence with actual estimates based on formal sampling.

Read More

Key Takeaways from Our Case Law Survey, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 14

Over the course of this survey, we have taken an in-depth look at a dozen cases and touched briefly on eleven others. Together, these twenty-three cases have provided us with an effective overview of the technology-assisted review case law landscape, including what’s been settled and what remains unresolved. We conclude our survey with a discussion of the five key takeaways we can derive from our review of these cases.

Read More

A Few Final Cases of Note, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 13

Before we conclude our survey of technology-assisted review cases, there are a handful of additional cases worth noting that did not warrant full posts of their own. Specifically, there are three more early cases, three more recent cases, and five international cases worth noting.

Read More

Addressing Process Adequacy and Transparency in Winfield, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 12

The next prominent technology-assisted review case requiring our attention is Winfield v. City of New York (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2017). The case wound up before the Magistrate Judge for the resolution of a variety of discovery disputes, including the Plaintiffs’ challenges to the City’s TAR process and their attempts to compel additional transparency regarding that process.

Read More

Trying to Compel TAR Use in Hyles, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 11

The next major TAR case for us to review is the third and final prominent case on the topic from Magistrate Judge Peck. In Hyles v. New York City (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016), a series of discovery delays and conflicts led to the referral of the case to Magistrate Judge Peck, who resolved a number of discovery questions for the parties, including the question of whether a requesting party can compel a producing party to use TAR.

Read More

Bringing it Full Circle in Rio Tinto, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 10

The next prominent TAR case was Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale, S.A., et al. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2015), which was another decision from Magistrate Judge Peck. This is another case in which the parties reached an agreement about the use of TAR, but the Magistrate Judge’s order accepting their agreement still provides an excellent summary of the state of TAR acceptance as of spring 2015, after the first three years of cases.

Read More

Seeking Approval and Perfection in Dynamo, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 9

The next TAR case to make headlines was Dynamo Holdings Limited Partnership, et al., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (USTC Sep. 17, 2014), which was a U.S. Tax Court case. The case was the first in which the U.S. Tax Court approved the use of technology-assisted review, and it addressed the question of whether prior approval for TAR use should be sought.

Read More

Changing Horses Midstream in Progressive and Bridgestone, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 8

We turn our attention next to two cases that both concerned attempts to switch from a traditional approach to a TAR approach midstream and that considered whether TAR should be applied after search terms have already been used. Those cases are Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. Delaney (D. Nev. Jul. 18, 2014) and Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 22, 2014).

Read More

Debating Process and Transparency in Biomet, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 7

The next prominent TAR case was In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (N.D. Ind. Aug.21, 2013), which was consolidated multidistrict product liability litigation.  The litigation was eventually settled, but not before substantial discovery work was done and two orders concerning the use of TAR were issued.

Read More

At a Judge’s Direction in EORHB, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 6

The next newsworthy TAR case was EORHB, Inc. v. HOA Holdings LLC (Del. Ch. Oct. 15, 2012), which was “a complex multimillion dollar commercial indemnity dispute” before the Delaware Court of Chancery, the oldest business court and one of the most respected business courts in the country. In October 2012, in a hearing in this case, the Judge brought up the subject of technology-assisted review on his own and directed the parties to use it.

Read More

A Negotiated Protocol in In Re: Actos, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 5

The next significant TAR case was In Re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation (W.D. La. Jul. 27, 2012), which provided the first on-the-record example of a TAR protocol successfully and cooperatively negotiated by the parties. It provided for testing of suitability before the full effort, plans for transparency and cooperation throughout the effort, and validation steps to measure the success of the effort.

Read More

Reported Results in Global Aerospace, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 4

The next significant technology-assisted review decision came from a state court in Virginia and included both the first results reported on the record and the first instance in which use of TAR was judicially approved over the objections of the requesting parties. Global Aerospace Inc. v. Landow Aviation, L.P. (Loudoun County, Va. Cir. Ct. Apr. 23, 2012) concerned the collapse of three airplane hangars and the resulting destruction of fourteen private jets.

Read More

Questions of Choice in Kleen Products, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 3

The next major TAR case after da Silva Moore was Kleen Products LLC, et al., v. Packaging Corporation of America, et al. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 21, 2012), which was significant for its analysis of the method selection question and for its very educational hearing transcripts, which include extensive discussion of Boolean searching, technology-assisted review, and validation methodologies.

Read More

In the Beginning Was da Silva Moore, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 2

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 in which the use of TAR was judicially approved, and Magistrate Judge Peck’s order approving its use in that case included topical education and legal analysis that was very impactful during TAR’s rise.

Read More

Still Crazy after All These Years, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 1

Technology-assisted review (“TAR”) first rose to prominence in the legal industry around 2011 under the name predictive coding. Although growth has remained slower than expected, signs of TAR’s continued growth and importance abound, and case law continues to accumulate. From 2012’s da Silva Moore, to 2017’s Winfield and beyond, this series will survey the case law in this area to provide you with the available guidance from the courts.

Read More

Xact Data Discovery Offering More Ways to Adopt Relativity

July 21, 2015 – XDD among vendors hosting Relativity with enhanced administrative options for end users

Read More

What’s New in Relativity 9.1

Relativity 9.1 includes some key new features. This blog post from Carl Chivers shares what you need to know!

Read More

Time for Small and Midsize Firms to Win Big Clients and Big Cases

With e-discovery tools becoming increasingly affordable, smaller firms have access to the same technologies employed by large law firms ‒ or sometimes even better ones. Small and midsize firms are better positioned to compete for large clients than ever before.

Read More

Combating Big Data with Cost-Effective TAR

Why use Technology Assisted Review (TAR)? Saving review costs is a big reason, but improved resource management is a key benefit.

Read More

Machine Translation: A Cost-Effective Solution for the eDiscovery Toolbox

It is commonplace today to have documents within eDiscovery collections that contain foreign languages, but this no longer need to be an obstacle for English-speaking legal teams. Handling documents in foreign languages has become much simpler and more cost-effective than in years past, and legal teams should understand their options.

Read More

XDD Co-Sponsors Pittsburgh 2014 Judicial Roundtable on Technology Assisted Review

XDD’s Chris Chapman recaps a recent CLE event featuring an in-depth discussion from a panel of Federal Judges, offering a unique judicial perspective on the use of technology-assisted review.

Read More

Proportionality Considerations and Computer-Assisted Review

Know the factors that help determine when computer-assisted review is the right tool for the job, so you’ll be well-prepared to present your proportionality argument and get your CAR discovery plan approved by the court.

Read More

Reining in Litigation Costs with a Strategic Partnership and a Data Policy

In this era of Big Data, companies can take steps to reduce the costs of defending themselves in litigation.

Read More

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

Discovery starts with listening.

(877) 545-XACT / or / Complete Contact Form