Some Things Don’t Need to be Discovered. Protect Sensitive Data in Discovery.

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.

May the Luck of the Irish be With You (and Your TAR).

Just in time for a St. Patrick’s Day eDiscovery blog post, earlier this month the High Court in Dublin issued an order approving the use of technology assisted review (TAR). In Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd. v. Sean Quinn, Justice Fullam found that “technology assisted review using predictive coding discharges a party’s discovery obligations” under the applicable Supreme Court rule, Rule O.31 r.12.

Welcome to the New Year – Artificial Intelligence and Legal Discovery in 2015

As you may have noticed, over the last several weeks in the e-discovery blogosphere there’s been no shortage of posts looking back at developments in 2014 and making predictions about what’s ahead in 2015. So I resisted the temptation to make my own list. Instead, I decided to spend some time doing a deeper dive ...

Technology Assisted Review – Score Another Win for Freedom of Choice

In a blog post last year, we examined two cases in which one party sought to force another party to use predictive coding technology to identify and produce documents in discovery. In each case, the court refused to order the producing party to use technology assisted review (“TAR”), finding instead that the litigant was entitled to use the reasonable, defensible methodology of its choice. In a recent decision from West Virginia, the court again adopted this freedom-of-choice approach.

U.S. Tax Court Takes the Nike Approach to Predictive Coding: JUST DO IT.

Last week in Dynamo Holdings et al. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 143 T.C. No. 9, the U.S. Tax Court became the latest court to approve the use of predictive coding in litigation. The scenario addressed by Judge Buch has become familiar: Faced with the review of a large volume of documents for potential production, the producing party (Dynamo) sought to use predictive coding to identify responsive documents; the requesting party (the IRS) opposed the approach.