Explore

Predictive Coding

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

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

Discovery starts with listening.

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