The Past is Prologue
Here are more events from the early days:
Moving Beyond Outbound Productions: Using TAR 2.0 for Knowledge Generation and Protection. Article by John Tredennick. October 18, 2018. Read the article.
Five Questions to Ask Your E-Discovery Vendor About CAL. Article by John Tredennick. October 2, 2018. Read the article.
How to Implement an Effective Legal Hold: Practices and Pitfalls. John Tredennick leads this webinar. Watch it.
Fifteen years ago, Judge Scheindlin announced in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg that whenever an organization anticipates litigation, it has a duty to undertake reasonable and good faith actions to preserve potentially discoverable information.
At first, many legal departments responded by issuing “legal holds” via email and tracked them using spreadsheets. As the number and complexity of holds increased, most quickly realized that relying on email and memory was dangerous, particularly when those managing the legal holds moved on to other jobs or left the company. Sanctions for failure to properly preserve evidence have increased in severity and number over the intervening years.
Predict Proves Effective Even With High Richness Collection. Article by John Tredennick. September 18, 2018. Read the article.
FCPA In the Trump Era. John Tredennick leads this webinar. Watch it.
A new policy enacted by the DOJ in late 2017 may significantly affect the way FCPA violations are handled internally by corporations. The sooner these violations are handled, the better.Under the policy, a company will be less likely to face prosecution if it has implemented an effective program to root out potential violations and swiftly ascertain and disclose to the DOJ all relevant facts about the individuals involved in the wrongdoing.
57 Ways to Leave Your (Linear) Lover. With Tom Gricks and Jeremy Pickens. July 11, 2018. Read the article.
TAR Talk: The Birth of TAR 2.0 (and CAL): With Tom Gricks and Dr. Jeremy Pickens
Learn about the birth of continuous active learning from Dr. Jeremy Pickens, Catalyst’s chief scientist. He details the differences between TAR 1.0 and 2.0 and how different systems work.
The Legal Ethics of Technology Assisted Review. John Tredennick leads this CLE accredited webinar. Watch it.
More than 28 states now say lawyers have an ethical duty to be competent in technology. A State Bar of California ethics opinion recently extended that duty to include competence in e-discovery. On top of that, the federal courts have implemented new proportionality rules governing your duty to produce documents. All of this comes as lawyers everywhere grapple with thorny ethical issues concerning the use of cloud technology, storing privileged documents with outside vendors, and relying for key tasks on smart but non-human computer algorithms.
Five Ways to Protect Against Privilege Waiver. John Tredennick leads this webinar. Watch it.
It’s an attorney’s worst nightmare—at least the worst during the discovery phase of a tough litigation. You produce tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of documents from what today is likely to be a multi-million document collection, under incredible time pressures. And then you find out you produced some number of privileged documents. The number really doesn’t matter. What matters now is that you are on the receiving end of an argument that you waived the privilege.
Using TAR Across Borders: Myths & Facts. With David Sannar. June 26, 2018. Read the article.
Straight Talk On TAR. John Tredennick leads this webinar. Watch it.
Addressing Head On the Myths and Misinformation That are Holding TAR Back. With Maura Grossman.
Technology-assisted review (and especially Continuous Active Learning) has been shown to substantially save on review cost and time, often by as much as 80-90%. It does so by using a form of artificial intelligence called supervised machine learning. In this process, an algorithm infers the labels of yet-to-be-reviewed documents based on learning from previously labeled training examples.
Despite TAR’s demonstrated savings, both in peer-reviewed studies and in case after case, there remains much confusion about how TAR works, which form of TAR to use, and even the definition of the term itself. Part of the problem stems from providers with a vested interest in marketing older, less-effective TAR software; part inheres in the nature of TAR itself, which can feel complicated and perhaps a bit “black box” to those not versed in how easy a good TAR system can be to use.
Using Technology Assisted Review for Small Cases. John Tredennick leads this webinar. Watch it.
Since the early days of technology assisted review, one question has persisted: How big does a case need to be before it makes sense to use TAR? Minimum numbers varied widely from as little as 100,000 up to a million documents. TAR 1.0 systems also required 500-document control sets and having senior lawyers code thousands of documents before starting review. And, when more documents were added to the set, you had to start all over. The consensus was that TAR wasn’t appropriate for small cases. And it was time-intensive. With TAR 2.0 and continuous active learning none of this applies. Simply start review using whatever is handy for initial seeds and stop when you run out of relevant documents.
TAR Talk: Flying with Global Aerospace: An Inside Look at the First TAR Case.
Hear how Tom Gricks, the lead attorney on the Global Aerospace case, obtained the first order authorizing the use of technology assisted review (TAR) over the objection of opposing party.
Mastering Internal Investigations: Practical tips and techniques for using advanced technology to find answers. John Tredennick leads this webinar. Watch it.
The CEO of a large corporation has asked you to investigate a tip she has received. Concerned about potential conflicts of interest, you call your law firm to help out. Counsel, in turn, quickly engages an investigator to ferret out the facts. The tip alleges fraud and misconduct by a high-ranking corporate officer (“Georgia”) who has been with the company for many years. Georgia is confident, outgoing, well liked and has over half of the corporate divisions reporting to her. It turns out, however, that she may have a dark side. Over the years she may have colluded with the competition, stolen trade secrets and even may have used her position to sexually harass several employees. As corporate counsel, outside attorney or even private investigator, where do you begin? What is your strategy? Whom do you trust?
Using TAR 2.0 to Reduce Review Costs:A Primer for Corporate Counsel and Their Law Firms. John Tredennick leads this webinar. Watch it. With Michael Arkfeld
Technology assisted review, aka predictive coding, sprang into prominence in 2012, when the first judicial opinions endorsed its use. Since then, TAR—with its ability to substantially reduce review costs—has entered the mainstream of high-volume discovery, both in the United States and worldwide. Once used only for outbound productions, TAR is now also used for early case assessment, investigations, privilege protection and to prepare for depositions and trial.While TAR has become the norm for some, many savvy counsel and legal professionals aren’t yet familiar with how the process works and why it can be so effective in reducing the total cost of discovery review.
Solving the Transparency Issues in Technology Assisted Review. John Tredennick leads this webinar. Watch it.
Technology assisted review (TAR) offers immense savings in both time and review costs, but many attorneys hesitate to use it because of concerns about "transparency" in the process. Specifically, when a party wants to use TAR in litigation, the opposing party often insists as a prerequisite that counsel agree to disclose the TAR process they use and which documents they use for training. If the parties are unable to agree on the transparency issue, they sometimes turn to the court to decide it. Courts are split on how they rule on this issue, sometimes even requiring opposing counsel to directly participate in the training.
Attorneys worry that this kind of transparency will force them to reveal work product, thoughts about problem documents, or even case strategy. Although most attorneys accept the requirement to share keyword searches as a condition of using them, disclosing their TAR training documents in conjunction with a production seems a step too far.However, by using a TAR 2.0 process that employs Continuous Active Learning, the transparency issue is minimized or even eliminated, as U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck acknowledged in his recent decision in Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale SA: “If the TAR methodology uses ‘continuous active learning’ … the contents of the seed set is much less significant."
Download copies of our founder’s recent books:
TAR for Smart People: How Technology Assisted Review Works and Why it Matters, (3rd ed.) October 2018.
A User’s Guide to TAR (for Smart People), April 2017.
The Legal Hold Handbook for Smart People, January 2018.
The IT Handbook: Legal Hold and Collection, September 2018.