Category Archives: Concept Search Tools

A Guide to E-Discovery Terms.

07 Saturday Jul 2018

Posted by in Concept Search Tools, Discovery, E-Discovery, Paralegals/Legal Assistants

≈ Comments Off on A Guide to E-Discovery Terms.

Tags

, ,

The Big List of E-Discovery Terms Every Paralegal Should Know, by Jenny Tucker, My Paralegal Place (reprinted with author’s permission)

http://www.myparalegalplace.com/2017/08/the-big-list-of-e-discovery-terms-every.html

I have paralegal friends who have had special training and received credentials for their knowledge of e-discovery. I also have paralegal friends who rarely run across the same kind of challenge. If these terms are common to you, I tip my hat. If not, I hope this helps. Thanks, Jenny, for sharing. -CCE

Questions About The New Federal Rules Amendments on Discovery? – 2nd of 5-Part Guide.

26 Thursday Nov 2015

Posted by in Admissibility, Concept Search Tools, Court Rules, Courts, Discovery, E-Discovery, Evidence, Federal District Court Rules, Preservation, Rule 16 Conference

≈ Comments Off on Questions About The New Federal Rules Amendments on Discovery? – 2nd of 5-Part Guide.

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Day 2: Your First Five Questions (times four): A Practical Guide to the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – Early Case Assessment, by Karin Scholz Jenson, Gary Levin, Robert J. Tucker, James A. Sherer and Jonathan Forman, Discovery Advocate Blog

http://bit.ly/1jluREF

The current amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—and, in particular, those that address the practice of civil discovery—are the product of five years of development, debate, and, of course, dialogue. Now that the Rules are set to be implemented on December 1, 2015 – and they apply to pending cases where ‘just and practicable’ — the focus among attorneys and their clients has changed from what the Rules should say to how they should work. While debates remain as to how certain parts of the Rules will wear-and-tear once put to the test in discovery, there are clear indications within the text of the Rules (with some help from the Committee Notes to the Rules and the contributions of judges and other writers) as to how the Rules will apply. . . .

Today we review: Early Case Assessment.

Continue reading →

Do-It-Yourself E-Discovery? Is There Such A Thing?

08 Sunday Feb 2015

Posted by in Concept Search Tools, Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Emails, Federal Rules of Discovery, Legal Technology, Microsoft Office, Native Format, Outlook, Preservation, Requests for Production, Rule 34

≈ Comments Off on Do-It-Yourself E-Discovery? Is There Such A Thing?

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Do-It-Yourself Digital Discovery, Revisited, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://tinyurl.com/ol2urvf

In case you have not noticed, Craig Ball is re-posting older articles, as he explains below. Truly folks, when it comes to e-discovery, when Craig Ball speaks, I listen. Maybe you should too. 

I have posted many of his revisited posts. To find them all, visit his blog, Ball In Your Court at https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/. -CCE

This is the thirteenth in a series revisiting Ball in Your Court columns and posts from the primordial past of e-discovery–updating and critiquing in places, and hopefully restarting a few conversations.  As always, your comments are gratefully solicited.

Do-It-Yourself Digital Discovery [Originally published in Law Technology News, May 2006]

Recently, a West Texas firm received a dozen Microsoft Outlook PST files from a client. Like the dog that caught the car, they weren’t sure what to do next.  Even out on the prairie, they’d heard of online hosting and e-mail analytics, but worried about the cost. They wondered: Did they really need an e-discovery vendor? Couldn’t they just do it themselves?

As a computer forensic examiner, I blanch at the thought of lawyers harvesting data and processing e-mail in native formats. ‘Guard the chain of custody,’ I want to warn. ’Don’t mess up the metadata! Leave this stuff to the experts!’ But the trial lawyer in me wonders how a solo/small firm practitioner in a run-of-the-mill case is supposed to tell a client, ‘Sorry, the courts are closed to you because you can’t afford e-discovery experts.’

Most evidence today is electronic, so curtailing discovery of electronic evidence isn’t an option, and trying to stick with paper is a dead end. We’ve got to deal with electronic evidence in small cases, too. Sometimes, that means doing it yourself.

As a computer forensic examiner, I blanch at the thought of lawyers harvesting data and processing e-mail in native formats. ‘Guard the chain of custody,’ I want to warn. ‘Don’t mess up the metadata! Leave this stuff to the experts!’ But the trial lawyer in me wonders how a solo/small firm practitioner in a run-of-the-mill case is supposed to tell a client, ‘Sorry, the courts are closed to you because you can’t afford e-discovery experts.’

Most evidence today is electronic, so curtailing discovery of electronic evidence isn’t an option, and trying to stick with paper is a dead end. We’ve got to deal with electronic evidence in small cases, too. Sometimes, that means doing it yourself.

The West Texas lawyers sought a way to access and search the Outlook e-mail and attachments in the PSTs. It had to be quick and easy. It had to protect the integrity of the evidence. And it had to be cheap. They wanted what many lawyers will come to see they need: the tools and techniques to stay in touch with the evidence in smaller cases without working through vendors and experts.

What’s a PST?

Microsoft Outlook is the most popular business e-mail and calendaring client, but don’t confuse Outlook with Outlook Express, a simpler application bundled with Windows. Outlook Express stores messages in plain text, by folder name, in files with the extension .DBX. Outlook stores local message data, attachments, folder structure and other information in an encrypted, often-massive database file with the extension .PST. Because the PST file structure is complex, proprietary and poorly documented, some programs have trouble interpreting PSTs.

What About Outlook?

Couldn’t they just load the files in Outlook and search? Many do just that, but there are compelling reasons why Outlook is the wrong choice for an electronic discovery search and review tool, foremost among them being that it doesn’t protect the integrity of the evidence. Outlook changes PST files. Further, Outlook searches are slow, don’t include attachments (but see my concluding comments below) and can’t be run across multiple mail accounts. . . . .

.

Craig Ball on E-Discovery’s Concept Search Tools.

10 Saturday Jan 2015

Posted by in Concept Search Tools, Discovery, E-Discovery

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Unclear on the Concept, Revisited, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court

https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/1953/

This is the second in a series revisiting Ball in Your Court columns and posts from the primordial past of e-discovery–updating and critiquing in places, and hopefully restarting a few conversations. As always, your comments are gratefully solicited.

Unclear on the Concept

 [Originally published in Law Technology News, May 2005]

A colleague buttonholed me at the American Bar Association’s recent TechShow and asked if I’d visit with a company selling concept search software to electronic discovery vendors.  Concept searching allows electronic documents to be found based on the ideas they contain instead of particular words. A concept search for “exploding gas tank” should also flag documents that address fuel-fed fires, defective filler tubes and the Ford Pinto. An effective concept search engine “learns” from the data it analyzes and applies its own language intelligence, allowing it to, e.g., recognize misspelled words and explore synonymous keywords.

I said, “Sure,” and was delivered into the hands of an earnest salesperson who explained that she was having trouble persuading courts and litigators that the company’s concept search engine worked. How could they reach them and establish credibility? She extolled the virtues of their better mousetrap, including its ability to catch common errors, like typing “manger” when you mean “manager.”

But when we tested the product against its own 100,000 document demo dataset, it didn’t catch misspelled terms or search for synonyms. It couldn’t tell “manger” from “manager.” Phrases were hopeless. Worse, it didn’t reveal its befuddlement. The program neither solicited clarification of the query nor offered any feedback revealing that it was clueless on the concept. . . .