We help customers find fresh thinking on information intelligence. Browse our blog, case studies, webcasts, and more.
Back in March we reported on Pyrrho Investments Ltd. v. MWB Property Ltd., the first order by a British court approving the use of the use of technology assisted review (TAR) for litigation disclosures. In that case, Master Matthews drew heavily from Magistrate Judge Peck’s landmark decision in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, and crafted a list of ten factors weighing in favor of the use of TAR. The court found no factors suggesting TAR should not be used. Now, another UK court has approved the use of TAR, but this time in a different posture.
What’s next for e-Discovery in the United States and beyond? Earlier this week at Legaltech West Coast, we assembled three panels of experts—including some of the country’s most well-respected federal magistrate judges—to explore answers to that question. The discussions were lively, thought-provoking, and sometimes funny (even we can’t take e-Discovery too seriously).
Read our discussion and education for eDiscovery practitioners focused on the context of statistical testing and measurement of techniques used to find documents containing relevant information for discovery—a context in which these statistics are fairly well-settled and easily understood.
Today’s corporate information systems are awash with highly sensitive data. Whether it’s personally identifiable information (“PII”), personal health information (“PHI”), financial and payment information, intellectual property and trade secrets, source code—the list goes on—sensitive information exists in virtually every collection of data. Learn to protect this sensitive data from discovery.
Last month in Poway, California, Gabriela Dow, a member of the district’s Educational Technology Advisory Committee, made a fairly routine public records request for information from the school district. She sought information related to the day-to-day operation and technology of the school district, as well as any records bearing her own name. But what Ms. Dow actually received was quite troubling.