luminosity-bg.png

Inventus Blog

Inventus is a leading national discovery management practice, focused on reducing litigation costs through a suite of bundled, best-of-breed technologies.

Five Ways to Prep Your Data for a More Efficient Document Review

Posted 10/12/17 4:54 PM by Megan Leach

 

Document review software is integral to the success and effectiveness of a review. In this blog, I'll discuss the five ways you should be preparing your data for more efficient document review:

Technology Assisted Review in Government Investigations: Where Are We Now?

Posted 08/3/17 3:00 PM by Chad Riley

eDiscovery comes in many shapes and sizes and some practice areas are naturally more subject to dealing with data intensive production requests than others. One such area is government investigations. Whether it is an investigation led by the DOJ, SEC, FTC or any of the other myriad Federal or state agencies, being on the receiving end of a government inquiry often means having to collect and make sense of an exorbitantly large amount of data.

To Track Or Not To Track Your Data…..That Is (Not) The Question

Posted 07/14/17 6:16 PM by Tina Najbjerg


For an eDiscovery vendor, keeping track of your data ─ or rather, your client’s data - should not be a question but a given. I know it may seem like an additional burden, when your client is demanding that you process their data NOW, and you may hesitate to create more work for your already exhausted Project Manager (PM). Despite the additional work, keeping even a very basic spreadsheet of each data set or production your company receives/sends-out pays off in more ways than you might think.

5 Ways to Use Concept Searching that You Might Have Missed

Posted 06/23/17 1:54 PM by Ed Fiducia


Though it took a number of years to gain initial acceptance, “concept search” technology has now matured to the point where it is deployed in the vast majority of document review platforms in the industry.

To be clear, I am NOT referring to Technology Assisted Review (TAR… aka “predictive coding”) technologies or workflows. In many ways, TAR evolved from concept search, but the two are not the same.

Let’s review. In the old fashioned (but sadly still prevalent) “linear review” workflow, documents are batched out to reviewers based on objective criteria like custodian, date range, or even Bates® range. It has been the “tried and true” method of document reviews for decades, despite the enormous cost and inherent risks.

Why create a concept search index in the first place? Because it is hands-down, one of the best ways to reduce the cost of review for virtually every matter (no matter how small…. or how large.) The cost of document review has always boiled down to the tension between the need for accuracy and the need for speed. “Document decisions per hour” is one key metric. “Overturns” (the number of document decisions a reviewer makes that are subsequently changed in second pass or QC review) is another. These tensions exist for virtually every case from 5 GB to 500 GB to 5 TB.

Concept search technology gives the document review team an opportunity to identify “semantically similar” documents to perform a more accurate and consistent document review at a lower cost. By clustering documents based on their similarity to one another, review teams can quickly identify near-duplicates and email threads. This gives them the ability to batch documents out to individual reviewers, organized in such a way that the individual reviewer can see the various iterations of a specific document and then able to apply coding decisions consistently across all “copies,” whether or not they were true “Hash” duplicates. This dramatically increases review speed (often by 5x to 10x or more) while at the same time reducing overturns.

Additionally, because the concept search index is built around “pattern matching” rather than specific keyword matching, two documents may be semantically similar but contain slightly different wording. These differences and the occurrences of each can be identified and quantified by the index. The result is that many platforms offer “keyword expansion” lists that can help attorneys identify additional keywords, “code words” and industry jargon word lists to search. They can also organize or categorize groups of documents based upon their overall subject matter, for more efficient review.

The financial ROI on employing this technology has been proven for over a decade. On that basis alone, if I were king of the world, I would declare that every single matter that every single client worked on would have it added to the workflow (right after declaring that the Red Sox are automatic winners of every World Series in the future… regardless of record!).

So why go “backwards” and discuss an older technology? Because while our industry continues to charge forward and looks for new “latest and greatest” technology, I believe that some of the most strategic values of concept search have either been forgotten… or more importantly, never learned in the first place. Even in instances where concept search is employed, it is only used for a relatively short period. We teach the junior attorneys how to use it to get through the initial review and document production. Once the production is out the door, we forget that it’s there for the rest of the case life-cycle. It’s time for the senior attorneys and yes, even first chair trial attorneys to get in the game. Concept search brings so much more to the table! Have you thought about these? Here are 5 key uses that most people miss:

Auditing your privileged documents to ensure that you have asserted privilege consistently on ALL versions of a document – This is one that I’ve been preaching for many years. It takes minimal effort but can yield significant results. One person with a priv log and a concept search tool can help prevent inadvertent waivers in a matter of minutes or hours.

Auditing redactions – This is the same idea as above but with more detail. IMHO, this should be part of the standard workflow during the actual document review. Review a document. Redact a document. Run a search for near duplicates. Redact them all the same way NOW.

The last three require that clients have their provider add the opposing party’s document production to the concept search index. Sad to say, but the vast majorities of clients opt out of this. I understand that while it’s easy to prove a hard-dollar ROI for the review and production phase, adding concept search to the documents that the other side has produced just seems like an extra cost to justify. Well, here is your justification…

Auditing the production from the opposing party – Run a keyword search on “redact” to pull out all redacted documents and then run a concept search on them. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve done this and found instances where the other side has either produced versions with no redactions whatsoever (can you say “privilege waiver”?), or at least multiple versions of documents that have significant differences in redactions applied.

Compare documents in the opposing production to the documents in “our” review set – What did they produce that looks just like what we had? What keywords did their set contain that we didn’t know to search on when we did our own review? This is an excellent opportunity to leverage concept searching during deposition and exhibit prep. Working on a patent case and getting ready for a Markman hearing? This is an excellent way to compare the language in “their” patent to the language in “ours”.

Last, but certainly not least is the ability to use concept search on witness testimony – Search on a Q&A pair from a deposition transcript to find related documents. More importantly, with today’s technology, we now have the ability to be connected to our document databases wherever we go… even into a deposition or courtroom.

To prove the last point, here is a real world example, from a real case with a real client of mine. My client (outside counsel on a construction defect and delay matter) was questioning a very uncooperative witness for the other side in a deposition. During questioning, it was uncovered that there was a memo… (summarizing)

Attorney: Who wrote the memo?
Witness: I don’t recall.

Attorney: Who received the memo?
Witness: I don’t recall.

Attorney: When was it sent?
Witness: I don’t recall

(At this point, my client remembered that he had access to his document database that had close to 1 million records. The key was that his database was concept search enabled. He loaded up his database and then started up Microsoft Word.)

Attorney: Fine, just tell me what the memo talked about.
Witness: (describes the contents of the memo)

My client typed the description while the witness was speaking, copied the text to the Windows clipboard, opened his document database program, pasted the witness’ own description into the search box and ran the search. He then turned his laptop around to face the witness. The memo that the witness was describing was the third hit on the results list. Bingo.

Anyone care to put a dollar value on that?

Until next time,

Ed

The Changing Face of Early (and Late) Case Assessment

Posted 06/9/17 8:37 PM by Thom Siblo

As the eDiscovery space evolves into an increasingly crucial component of litigation and the legal industry as a whole, the faces and concepts of yesteryear are beginning to change. There was a time not that long ago when the phrase Early Case Assessment (“ECA”) conjured visions of marginally helpful concept wheels, and limited search functionality coupled with long lag times between searching and the ability to review the data.

New Wine in an Old Bottle: The Discoverability of Social Media.

Posted 05/17/17 11:03 PM by Sarah Sawyer

According to the Pew Research Center, 7 out of 10 Americans participate in social media. We share our lives with varying degrees of privacy on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat.

Inventus Will Help

Posted 05/11/17 7:48 PM by Inventus

Our team is dedicated to helping you. Learn more with the infographic below, or contact us now.
 

Will the use of artificial intelligence replace lawyers?

Posted 04/11/17 10:14 PM by Claudine Schardijn

Legal technology is continuously increasing efficiency and keeping costs down, but will it ever take the place of a lawyer? Artificial intelligence is changing the way lawyers practice law and Artificial Intelligence platforms are affecting how tasks are accomplished.

Not Just the Book, but Its Cover

Posted 03/15/17 4:10 PM by Quan Luc

Typically, the first question that comes up when your client receives a request for production is “what is the scope of the responsive documents to produce, in order to comply with the discovery request?” However, at least in one California court, not only does it matter what you provide in response to a discovery request but in what format you produce ESI.

How do Corporate Legal Departments Control Costs Associated with the Growing Amounts of Retained Data

Posted 03/9/17 8:32 PM by Matt Masterson

As corporate legal departments embark on 2017, the pressure to contain the costs associated with the avalanche of user-created data continues to grow. In-house lawyers have been asking the same question for many years ─ how do we control these costs? 

luminosity

Reduce overall cost and risk of your entire legal process
Learn More