IN OUR EXPERTS' OPINIONS

In Our Experts' Opinions: The Altep Blog

With more than 20 years' success in complex eDiscovery management, data forensics, compliance, and investigations, and a team of more than 200 experts throughout the US and in Europe, Altep offers a uniquely valuable perspective. Each month, our blog features a different expert, and offers analysis and commentary on a broad spectrum of topics from data management to cyber security. We hope you find our posts informative; if you'd like to submit a guest post, please feel free to contact us!

Joshua’s work focuses mainly on assisting clients with understanding and implementing advanced review techniques, technologies, and workflows with the goals of improving efficiency and consistency, while reducing e-Discovery costs. Joshua has more than ten years of industry experience, with seven of those years spent working as an attorney alongside many exceptional litigation attorneys at arguably the top litigation law firm in the country.

FCA US LLC v. Cummings - It's Not Perfect, but It Does Need to be Better

HiRes-cover

TAR eDiscovery orders and opinions have made some pretty big splashes in the last five years, and the recent FCA US LLC v. Cummings, Inc., order, despite being brief, was no exception. The court took up the question of whether keyword search culling of a data set prior to the application of Technology Assisted Review (i.e., TAR or Predictive Coding) is the preferred method. The answer, in the court’s opinion, was simple but powerful: it is not.

Continue reading
732 Hits

What is Continuous Active Learning (CAL), Really? – Part One

What is Continuous Active Learning (CAL), Really? – Part One

Ever since the March 2, 2015 Rio Tinto opinion and order, there has been a lot of buzz in eDiscovery around the phrase “Continuous Active Learning” (CAL). Judge Peck briefly mentioned CAL while summarizing the available case law around seed-set sharing and transparency. For the sake of clarity, the term seed-set in this post refers to the initial group of training documents used to kick off a Technology Assisted Review (TAR) project. We refer to the review sets that follow as training sets. The point of Judge Peck’s mention of CAL, as I understood it, was to alert readers to the possibility that seed-set selection and disclosure disputes may become much less necessary as TAR tools and protocols continue to evolve.

Continue reading
2123 Hits

Redefining Responsiveness Evaluation: Making the Case for True Unique Document Review

Redefining  Responsiveness Evaluation: Making the Case for True Unique Document Review

If you are reading this blog, you have probably heard the story many times by now. Document review is the most expensive part of eDiscovery. Like many, I find myself asking the same question again and again. How can we do it better? One obvious answer is by defensibly reviewing less. The not so obvious part of that answer is the available methods for doing so.

Continue reading
1868 Hits

My Top Five Takeaways from The U.S. Tax Court’s Emphatic Affirmation of Predictive Coding

My Top Five Takeaways from The U.S. Tax Court’s Emphatic Affirmation of Predictive Coding

Dynamo Holdings Limited Partnership v. Commissioner

In an order dated July 13, 2016, the U.S. Tax Court once again strongly supported the use of Predictive Coding. The case had already featured some notable opinions and orders on the topic. This recent order is a fun read for analytics nerds and newcomers alike, as the Court did a great job of laying out the associated facts and addressing the typical arguments for and against use of the technology. Here are a few items that caught my attention as I read it.

Continue reading
1673 Hits

To SME or Not to SME (in TAR)… That is the Question

To SME or Not to SME (in TAR)… That is the Question

This article assumes that Technology Assisted Review is being deployed in a production review setting where the user seeks to identify potentially relevant documents from among a larger corpus, and to subject those documents to full manual review.  The use of TAR as an investigative or fact finding tool is a more financially flexible proposition, and the efficiency of that approach should be evaluated via separate standards.

There has been some debate in the past few years about the proper role of the Subject Matter Expert (SME) in technology assisted review (TAR) – a discussion which has understandably resulted in plenty of disagreement. There was a time when most blog posts and white papers swore that SME training was the only path to success, but that position looks to have softened some.

Continue reading
1666 Hits

Creative Analytics - Part 2: The Presentation Phase

Creative Analytics - Part 2: The Presentation Phase

This post is Part 2 of a series - you can also watch a video of the related webinar, or read Part 1, on the kCura Blog.

 

By Joshua Tolles and  Sara Skeens

Solving Challenges in the Presentation Phase 

In our last post, we discussed the value of looking at analytics in e-Discovery with a creative mindset, and a few steps that you can take to expand your problem solving horizons. As we noted there, analytics is most commonly thought of as a tool to be applied during the review phase of the EDRM to control data sizes; however, we'd like to change that. At Altep, we frequently use analytics to solve many more problems than just those found in the production review arena. With a firm grasp on the technology, plenty of curiosity, and a healthy passion for "building a better mouse trap," we have found quite a few areas where analytics can help turn the eDiscovery rat race into a more methodical and scalable process. 

Continue reading
1708 Hits