E-Discovery & Compliance NewsBrought to you by www.law.com
Law Technology News - By
The e-discovery and data management company comes in at no. 241 of Deloitte’s Technology Fast 500 list of fastest growing technology media companies in North America.
San Francisco based Recommind Inc. an unstructured data management, analysis and governance technology company recently announced its placement on Deloitte’s Technology Fast 500, again. The list ranks the fastest growing technology, media, telecommunications, life sciences and clean technology companies in North America. Coming in at 241 with a 390 percent revenue increase since 2008, Recommind made the cut for its fifth consecutive year.
“Our success reflects the importance for organizations of all sizes to address the growing amount of unstructured information in today’s data-driven landscape,” said Recommind CEO Bob Tennant, whose company attributes its successes to innovations that increased the demand for unstructured data governance. As well, Recommind touts its e-discovery technology and ability to collect, curate and categorize data efficiently and accurately. Its customers include Clifford Chance, Morgan Lewis, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S. Department of Energy, White & Case and WilmerHale.
“The companies excelling in these sectors have a startup mentality that allows them to be nimble and adapt quickly, which is why they consistently lead the list of fast-growing companies each year,” said Deloitte partner James Atwell. To be eligible for the Techbology Fast 500 recognition, the companies must have current year operating revenues or at least $5 million and own intellectual property that is sold to customers in products.
Attorney Marlisse Silver Sweeney is a freelance writer based in Vancouver. MarlisseSilverSweeney@gmail.com. Twitter: @MarlisseSS. LTN: @lawtechnews.
Law Technology News - By
It’s not that nothing happened in electronic data discovery law in 2013. A lot happened. However, compared to 2012, which saw the landmark Da Silva Moore decision on predictive coding, along with a series of predictive coding and social media decisions keeping the EDD world on the edge of its collective seats, 2013 EDD law just wasn’t as earthshattering.
As it has done since 2000, vendor Kroll Ontrack surveyed the major e-discovery law cases of the year, 64 of them for 2013. In a sign of the times, Kroll added a social media component to this year’s end-of-the year review, convening a panel of EDD law commentators in a Google+ Hangout on Dec. 10 to discuss 2013 and beyond. The review of the cases and the views of the commentators confirmed that proportionality, proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and e-discovery costs were big issues this year.
Moderated by Kroll attorney/EDD marketing director Michele Lange and independent EDD counsel Philip Favro, the Google+ Hangout panelists included Ralph Losey, a partner at Jackson Lewis and head of EDD practice (whose firm uses Kroll products); attorney George Socha of Socha Consulting (co-founder of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model), attorney/analyst David Horrigan of 451 Research; analyst Barry Murphy of the eDJ Group, and attorney/bloggers Joshua Gilliland of Bow Tie Law and Samir Mathur of IT-Lex.
Numbers and Trends
Cases on preservation and spoliation were at the top of the charts in Kroll’s 2013 survey, accounting for 28 percent of the total of the 64 cases the company included. Other big topics were production disputes, which were 23 percent of the total, procedural issues, including predictive coding at 18 percent, e-discovery sanctions at 18 percent, and e-discovery costs at 13 percent.
The cases indicated a split between courts as to when the duty to preserve EDD data is triggered and when sanctions are appropriate for bad conduct. The cases also show a greater emphasis on proportionality as well as the ability to tax costs for predictive coding.
The Google+ panelists noted that, although the proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure address proportionality and sanctions, these are not new concepts for lawyers, and neither is preservation of evidence. The panelists opined on the influence of U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, the author of the Zubulake series of opinions and other notable e-discovery decisions.
Although the Zubulake decisions and other Scheindlin have been persuasive authority in courts across the land, the panelists agreed the actual legal precedents were more limited and that Scheindlin had taken care to note that her decisions were, in many ways, limited to her courtroom and often to the litigants before her.
On 2012’s big topic, predictive coding, the Google+ panelists agreed adaptation—at least for now—was somewhat limited to big firms with big clients and big budgets and that it had not taken off in smaller firms with smaller cases, with one panelist adding that predictive coding simply isn’t the right tool for smaller cases. Having said that, most panelists agreed it would be a big mistake not to use predictive coding in large, complex litigation.
The panelists rounded out the Hangout with discussions of amendment to the federal rules and the state of e-discovery cost-shifting. Although the panelists agreed generally that the proposals were a good idea, they questioned how effective they may be. They agreed also that 28 U.S.C. 1920, the federal statute allowing for cost-shifting in litigation, was a dated law written for the technology of a bygone era and that the statute needed to be junked or overhauled massively.
In closing, they agreed that rule changes would accomplish little without fundamental changes in the legal traditions that govern e-discovery just as much as the rules do, with one panelist noting, “It’s about the changing the culture as much as the rules.”
Attorney David Horrigan is industry analyst and counsel at 451 Research, and a former reporter for The National Law Journal and LTN.
Law Technology News - By
Elysium Digital, a litigation consulting firm, released on Monday, Dec. 9, analytical reporting software for midsized legal practices. The new software, called Classify, extends Elysium's e-discovery consulting services to managed software that identifies, classifies and reports on data relevant to litigation.
Christian Hicks, president of Elysium Digital, told Law Technology News that Classify can review large data sets and, using a report engine, provide insight into litigation and the e-discovery process at prices affordable for mid-market law firms. For approximately $1,000, said Hicks, Classify can make e-discovery a predictable and less costly process.
Hicks said that Classify was the result of customer requests and, at this time, the consulting company has no plans to offer software addressing other component tasks in the Electronic Discovery Reference Model, such as collection and document review. The company will, however, continue addressing the needs of its customers in computer forensics, e-discovery and patent areas, confirmed Hicks, who would not rule out other e-discovery software offerings in the future.
Elysium, based in Boston, provided the U.S. Department of Justice with technical expertise and consulting in separating Internet Explorer from the Windows operating system to help settle an antitrust matter. The company now has 47 employees and approxiately 150 active clients and matters across the nation.
For more information, see Elysium's webpage on Classify.
Attorney Sean Doherty is LTN's technology editor.
Law Technology News - By
Want to know if your cough is really the flu? There’s an app for that. Well, more like thousands of apps for that. So many, in fact, that a bill has been introduced to the that would empower the Food and Drug Administration to regulate mobile health applications, according to Steven Fox on Post Schell’s Health IT Law Blog.
The bill, entitled the SOFTWARE—or Sensible Oversight for Technology which Advances Regulatory Efficiency Act—supports what Fox calls the prevailing view that regulation should be kept to a minimum to support innovation but protect consumer safety.
The main regulatory issue is categorizing the applications into those that will be used by “high-risk” patients—who need more oversight—versus the applications used in lower risk situations, says Fox. The bill itself names three categories of health applications: medical software, which will be regulated by the FDA; and clinical software and health software, which will not be regulated. However, the last sentence of the Act suggests that regulatory framework for clinical and health software may and should be imposed in the future.
Attorney Marlisse Silver Sweeney is a freelance writer based in Vancouver. MarlisseSilverSweeney@gmail.com. Twitter: @MarlisseSS LTN: @lawtechnews