In this episode of The ESI Report, Michele Lange interviews two experts in the e-discovery field, Eric Robinson and James Sherer, about the main takeaways from the Jolt Symposium and Legaltech New York and how current trends could affect the day-to-day jobs of e-discovery professionals. At the Jolt Symposium, Sherer explains, there were discussions about social media implications, artificial intelligence and its application to current and future technology, and an increase in “bring your own device” policies within companies. Robinson attended Legaltech New York and thought the main topics in e-discovery to be predictive coding, maximizing current processes, and gaining efficiencies. Both experts believe the future of e-discovery brings a change in the “save everything” preservation mentality.

In this episode of The ESI Report, Michele Lange interviews Ralph Losey about ei-Recall, a calculation he formulated for measuring the recall of electronic discovery processes. In a very comprehensible interview, Losey explains what recall and precision are in the e-discovery field and shows some of the limitations within current discovery reviews. He then discusses how ei-Recall can be a more simple, realistic, and accurate system for review, because it calculates the recall as a range, only requires one sample, and is an easily-understandable process. Special thanks to our sponsor, Kroll Ontrack.

It is the new year so everybody is talking about resolutions, even those working in the field of electronic discovery. While we all have our personal resolutions, many legal professionals also create resolutions to improve their jobs, client happiness, organization, or their use of legal technology. Litigation professionals across the world are creating resolutions related to their electronic discovery positions by re-evaluating processes or changing the way they interact with clients. What are these legal professionals planning to do in 2015 and is it similar to your goals?

In this episode of The ESI Report, Michele Lang interviews twelve different litigation professionals about their 2015 resolutions in the field of e-discovery. Their resolutions include enhancing the level of electronic discovery consulting services, helping clients proactively manage high risk data, focusing on improving attorney experience, and helping clients automate their data storage for efficiency. In addition to client based resolutions, many of the e-discovery professionals set more personal work-related goals. These include being more patient with questions, not setting expectations for what will happen any given day, working on less urgent but still important tasks, and learning about new technology. A couple of the guests are working on specific projects this year including the implementation of a new email policy and ensuring a new document review center is running smoothly in the new year. You can learn a lot about the goals of these e-discovery experts including one fun fact: e-discovery is called e-disclosure in England.

In order, the guests include Josh Zylbershlag, Ralph Losey, Anthony Diana, David Yerich, Danny Thankachan, Daniel Kavan, Cliff Nichols, David Baldwin, Sue Kaiser, Shannon Capone Kirk, Joel Bothof, and James Sherer.

There has been a rapid growth in electronically stored information that is potentially useful for e-discovery in litigation. Because more data storage means higher costs, organizations are searching for new ways to store their information efficiently and cost effectively while at the same time not limiting access throughout discovery, a process which can sometimes last for months or years. It is important for litigators and large companies to understand what their options are for data storage and hosting cost flexibility. A process called "nearlining" provides a relatively simple solution to this problem of expensive data storage.

On this episode of The ESI Report, host Michelle Lang interviews discovery product director Andrea Gibson and civil litigator Brian Calla about data storage costs, the nearlining process, the formatting of data storage, and other innovations in document review. Gibson explains that data access is not necessarily to all data, but to the appropriate data for any point in time, which can change throughout the life of an investigation, regulatory review, or litigation. The challenge lies in keeping volume of information reduced while maintaining access to what's important. Nearlining, she says, is a capability by which you can store data that isn't currently necessary, making the active data footprint smaller and greatly reducing electronic information storage costs. Calla, who often deals with e-discovery, discusses how nearlining works with his clients' needs. Often, they wish to collect too much data initially. In this case he uses predictive coding to weed out unnecessary data and nearlines it for potential later need. When a project or review is finished, he will nearline all documents that are coded not responsive. Gibson and Calla finish by discussing other data storage innovations they each use to reduce costs including reformatting, predictive coding, and automatic redactions.

Brian Calla is a member at Eckert Seamans in Pittsburgh, PA. He concentrates his practice in general civil litigation with a particular emphasis on e-discovery, mass tort litigation and products liability. Calla serves as an Electronic Discovery Special Masters (EDSM) panel member for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Andrea Gibson is the Director of Product for Discovery Solutions at Kroll Ontrack, specifically working on the ediscovery.com Review product line. She has more than 10 years of direct experience as a litigator and legal consultant.

When an organization or business suddenly finds itself in the middle of a civil litigation case, it is often overwhelmed with discovery requests. Most companies don't have the tools or processes in place to deal with collection and data preservation and encounter expensive and time-consuming issues when responding to requests for information. What is a legal hold, would your organization be able to initiate a defensible legal hold, and when can data be confidently deleted again? It is very important to understand the discovery process and implement and enforce effective systems for data preservation now in order to reduce future costs of potential litigation.

In this episode of ESI Report, Michelle Lang interviews experienced e-discovery expert Cathleen Peterson about why data preservation is crucial to the discovery process, how to create a defensible legal hold, how to take account for emerging technologies, and when it is ok to delete data. Peterson explains that the fundamental challenge of data preservation is balancing the burden and the benefit. Failure to preserve means trying to recreate access to the data, an incredibly expensive and time-consuming process that raises questions about the effectiveness of the council or credibility of the client. Alternatively, well-preserved data can facilitate a well-managed litigation, control costs, result in an outcome that serves the client, and create the least disruptive litigation flow. A legal hold, Peterson explains, involves giving all potential parties who may have relevant evidence notice that litigation is in existence or anticipated. This includes employees, third parties, the IT department, or any person who may have accessed the information. She discusses how organizations need to implement a data governance system, enforce it across the organization, and update it yearly to account for changes in technology. Once the case is dismissed, the legal hold should be formally lifted and the data deleted so that future cases are not complicated by old data.

Peterson is a senior vice president at Kroll Ontrack, where she leads the consulting and advanced review services teams. She was the Legal Director at Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe and councel at WilmerHale. Cathleen has deep experience in all-things ediscovery, including records management, collection and preservation strategies, technology assisted review, and regulatory compliance.

E-discovery is an intricate and complicated process where law and technology intersect to find solutions to complex litigation challenges. Lawyers and legal professionals going through the e-discovery process are often overwhelmed with data and information in varying systems in different stages of technological advancement. From millions of documents to tight production deadlines, no one understands the realities of the e-discovery frenzy better than an e-discovery case manager.

On this episode of The ESI Report, Michele Lange interviews Joe Edlund and Matt Samet, two e-discovery case managers from Kroll Ontrack. Edlund explains that it is the job of a case manager to establish a working relationship with the lawyer, including training on the data software, explaining data sets and performance, helping to make deadlines, and generally decreasing stress. Samet describes some of the benefits to the legal professional of having an e-discovery case manager. They are able to see the client from beginning to end and organize data recovery systems, identify response documents, and be proactive about potential issues. Through an open and communicative relationship with engineers and project level support, case managers are able to make the hectic process of e-discovery easier and more manageable. Stick around to the end for a fun quiz about job descriptions.

Joe Edlund is a Kroll Ontrack case manager who partners with law firms and corporate clients to provide sound advice and best practices in connection with e-discovery management. Matt Samet has experience as a case manager and is also a portfolio manager at Kroll Ontrack, also providing clients with e-discovery solutions.

Special thanks to our sponsor Kroll Ontrack.

With 2.6 million pages, thousands of search terms, and hundreds of potential defendants, the counsel in New Mexico State Investment Council v. Bland decided traditional filtering methods would not work. As a result, they turned to Technology Assisted Review (TAR) and Predictive Coding systems to locate relevant data. On this episode of the ESI Report, host Michele Lange interviews Cliff Nichols from Day Pitney and Tony Reichenberger from Kroll Ontrack. Together, they discuss the enhanced abilities and greater efficiencies of TAR and Predictive Coding systems. Tune in to learn more about how these automated systems tap into human expertise to add speed, drive down costs, and increase accuracy during discovery processes.

Cliff Nichols is E-Discovery Counsel for Day Pitney, where he directs all electronic investigation. A regular speaker at ediscovery conferences and events, Cliff is recognized as a leader in the cost-saving and efficient use of predictive coding and other types of technology assisted review.

Tony Reichenberger is an Advanced Review Services Team Manager at Kroll Ontrack, where he manages document review projects and consults with clients on predictive coding and technology assisted review.

Special thanks to our sponsor, Kroll Ontrack.

For years, there was an unspoken notion that the only way to approach e-discovery was on a case-by-case basis; that every case was unique and similarly required a unique approach to discovery. But the constant cycle of collecting, analyzing, reviewing, and producing data wholly disconnected from other projects has created a lot of inefficiency. On this episode of the ESI Report, host Michele Lange interviews portfolio management experts David J. Kearny and John Winkler about an alternative approach to e-discovery.

David J. Kearney is the Director of Technology Services at Cohen and Grigsby PC, where he advises on technology, legal project management, and ediscovery litigation and support processes. David has years of experience managing technical staff while recommending, implementing, and managing hardware, software and workflow solutions, including e-discovery and project management, and has authored articles on e-discovery management practices, forensics, and other topics.

John Winkler is an Account Executive at Kroll Ontrack. He partners with law firm and corporate clients to provide sound advice and best practices in connection with the management of electronically stored information in litigation and investigation. With over 12 years of experience in legal technologies, John works with clients to effectively reduce the proposed scope of discovery.

With decreases in data production, increased front-end analytics, and greater emphasis on search terms, it appears that document review projects have been evolving over the past four years. Externally, public pressure to reduce costs and recent developments in law are driving smaller review teams to do more with less. On this episode of the ESI Report, host Michele Lange interviews ESI expert Eli Nelson to discuss the latest trends and predictions for the eDiscovery industry.

Eli Nelson is Of Counsel in the Washington, D.C. office of McKenna, Long and Aldridge where he is responsible for developing and implementing firm-wide practice standards for electronic discovery and information governance. Eli counsels clients and attorneys on the efficient use of technology, data mining techniques, and project management practices for litigation and compliance issues.

Are you engaged in eDiscovery in Asia? Do you think you have all your bases covered? You may want to think again. On this episode of the ESI Report, host Michele Lange interviews eDiscovery experts Jason Velasco and Kate Chan. Together, they delve into the intricacies of eDiscovery in the APAC region.

Jason Velasco is Co-Founder and Consultant for eDJGroup. He has over fifteen years of experience in electronic discovery issues and forensic investigations. Jason has conducted more than 350 computer forensic examinations and 700 CLE courses related to eDiscovery.

Kate Chan is a New York attorney who started practicing on Wall Street. She is a native of Hong Kong and is fluent in both Mandarin and Cantonese. She has eight years of experience in eDiscovery and is the current Regional Managing Director of Kroll Ontrack's Legal Technologies unit in Asia Pacific.