Social Media eDiscovery and Review Tools

By Peter Coons
Facebook and other social networking sites (SNS) are going to be a hot topic in eDiscovery for 2012. D4 discussed this in an earlier post. Many of our clients have responded to that post and asked D4 how they can view social media ESI in a review tool.

The answer is that it depends on how the ESI is collected and what review tool you are using. There are tools available that are able to collect an entire Facebook page (and other social media sites) and then some. Others may choose to capture and save screenshots of the site or pages in question along with proper documentation.

Regardless of the output or method used to capture, at the end of the day it is ESI (unless you print out web pages) and it can be handled in a similar fashion (i.e. processed and hosted) as e-mail or MS Office documents. Yes, there may be different metadata elements and those elements may not be captured if certain tools, or methods, are (or are not) used, but each case is different and currently there is no standard for capturing electronically stored information from SNS.

We recently had a case where we were asked to capture the Facebook and LinkedIn accounts of 12 individuals…

What in “TARnation” is going on at LegalTech New York?!

By Tom Groom

One has only to glance at the 2012 schedule for LegalTech New York to see that Technology Assisted Review (TAR) is the “key theme” of this year’s show. Consider your experience with Amazon or Netflix where the system “suggests items” based on what you’ve previously chosen. TAR applies that same concept to prioritizing document review by leveraging human intelligence with a computer system.

TAR is also referred to as “Computer Assisted Review” and can be based on different technologies such as Categorization (Relativity Assisted Review) or Predictive Coding (Equivio Relevance). The TAR system combines a statistical sampling engine to confirm, validate precision and calculate system stability with technology to query documents and manage the workflow. The end result is a “ranked set of documents” that enables the case management team to make better decisions on where to focus their efforts.

Keep in mind that TAR is really nothing new and is only as good as the human workflow that trains and manages it.

Judge Timothy Hillman and the Boston ALSP discuss Rule 26(f) ‘Meet and Confer’ Strategies

By Chuck Kellner
The message is that counsel has to get a handle on their clients’ data and architecture in preparing for discovery. Otherwise, says Judge Timothy Hillman, U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Massachusetts, they’ll be in my courtroom “facing down the barrel of my gun”.

In some of the worst possible Boston weather, the local chapter of the Association of Litigation Support Professionals filled a conference room at Holland & Knight’s Boston office. At the front, were Judge Hillman, Michelle Treadwell Briggs, who is a litigating attorney and Senior Manager of Litigation Technology at Goodwin Procter LLP, and Joan Washburn, Director of Litigation Support at Holland & Knight LLP. The topic of the day was “Rule 26(f) “Meet and Confer” Strategies”.

Like other US Magistrates, Judge Hillman sees a lot of discovery disputes. But he has some sympathy for outside counsel, whom has the “impossible situation” of having to rely on clients’ say-so about their systems, their litigation holds, their data, and their potentially responsive data. Outside counsel has to come up to speed on thorough investigation, and according to a long and growing line of cases, must independently inquire and verify.

Treadwell-Briggs emphasized the cost-cutting opportunities found in good preparation for the Rule 26(f) meet and confers…

eDiscovery In the News and on the Web

Roetzel & Andress Chooses Relativity for In-House e-Discovery
Press Release – Chicago, IL and New York, NY – January 31, 2012

X1 Social Discovery™ – The Breakthrough eDiscovery Platform for Social Media
X1 Discovery

Equivio Announces “Inside-Relativity” Version of its Analytics Technology
Press Release – Kensington, MD – January 6, 2012

The Top Ten “What NOT to Do” List for LegalTech New York 2012
Blog post by Dean Gonsowski from E-Discovery 2.0