We help customers find fresh thinking on information intelligence. Browse our blog, case studies, webcasts, and more.
October 11th, 2016
In this post, we focus on a complexity of estimating richness, precision, and recall when searching for sensitive information: sample “depth.” Sample “depth” is the level at which we intend to measure and remediate. Learn about sensitive data in your sampling.
August 26th, 2016
On July 12, 2016, the European Commission announced its final approval of the EU-US Privacy Shield framework, which replaces the US Department of Commerce "Safe Harbor" program. Safe Harbor formerly served as one of several mechanisms for companies in the EU to transfer personal data from the EU to the US, but the European Court of Justice invalidated the program in the fall of 2015, on the grounds that it failed to adequately protect the privacy rights of EU citizens.
August 11th, 2016
In this employment discrimination case against the City of New York, the parties asked the court to resolve a number of discovery disputes, including a disagreement about the methodology that should be used to find responsive documents. The City preferred to use keyword searches, and the parties had engaged in some preliminary discussions about the appropriate keywords. Read about Judge Peck's order on technology assisted review.
July 11th, 2016
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.
June 16th, 2016
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).