Iterated Four-Step Work Flow for Active Machine Training to Help Attorneys Locate Relevant Evidence

FYI – in each round of training, including the first, document reviewers are only looking at a few hundred, to at most, a few thousand documents. A typical complex project takes about ten rounds of machine training to complete by finding all of the relevant documents required.

This entry was posted on Sunday, January 7th, 2018 at 6:11 pm and is filed under Lawyers Duties, Metadata, Review, Search, Technology, VENDORS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

3 Responses to Iterated Four-Step Work Flow for Active Machine Training to Help Attorneys Locate Relevant Evidence

netzer9 says:

January 8, 2018 at 9:15 am

Reblogged this on Legal Career Center.

LikeLike
The SME Team Members in a Complex AI-Enhanced Document Review Project | e-Discovery Team ® says:

January 14, 2018 at 4:52 pm

[…] Also see the video on the four-step method. Iterated Four-Step Work Flow for Active Machine Training to Help Attorneys Locate Relevant Evidence. […]

LikeLike
True Confessions: The Importance of Project Managers and Details of Second Pass Review in a Complex ESI Review Project | e-Discovery Team ® says:

January 21, 2018 at 4:07 pm

[…] Also see the video on the four-step method. Iterated Four-Step Work Flow for Active Machine Training to Help Attorneys Locate Relevant Evidence […]

LikeLike

Ralph’s Tweets

ABA e-Discovery Institute. Well done. Just ended. One judge complained about a real cat jumping on a lawyers head d… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 day ago

Next thing you know they will be promoting “multimodal” 😉 twitter.com/ibm/status/137… 1 day ago

RT @JacksonLewisPC: The new year brought several important changes to the #CFRA, including the expansion of the scope of individuals who qu… 2 days ago

Follow @RalphLosey

About the Blogger

Ralph Losey is a practicing attorney and shareholder in a national law firm with 50+ offices and over 800 lawyers where he is in charge of Electronic Discovery. All opinions expressed here are his own, and not those of his firm or clients. No legal advice is provided on this web and should not be construed as such.

Ralph has long been a leader of the world's tech lawyers. He has presented at hundreds of legal conferences and CLEs around the world. Ralph has written over two million words on e-discovery and tech-law subjects, including seven books. He is also the founder of Electronic Discovery Best Practices, and e-Discovery Team Training, an online education program that arose out of his five years as an adjunct professor teaching e-Discovery and Evidence at the UF School of Law. Ralph is also publisher and principle author of this blog and many other instructional websites.

Ralph is a specialist who has limited his legal practice to electronic discovery and tech law since 2006. He has a special interest in software and the search and review of electronic evidence using artificial intelligence, and also in general AI Ethics. issues. Ralph was the only private lawyer to participate in the 2015 and 2016 TREC Recall Track of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and prior to that competed successfully in the EDI Oracle research.

Ralph has been involved with computers, software, legal hacking and the law since 1980. Ralph has the highest peer AV rating as a lawyer and was selected as a Best Lawyer in America in four categories: Commercial Litigation; E-Discovery and Information Management Law; Information Technology Law; and, Employment Law - Management. Ralph also received the "Most Trusted Legal Advisor" industry award for 2016-17 by the Masters Conference. His full biography may be found at RalphLosey.com.

Ralph is the proud father of two children, Eva Losey Grossman, and Adam Losey, a lawyer with cyber expertise (married to another cyber expert lawyer, Catherine Losey), and best of all, husband since 1973 to Molly Friedman Losey, a mental health counselor in Winter Park.

Sedona Principles 3rd Ed

1. Electronically stored information is generally subject to the same preservation and discovery requirements as other relevant information.

2. When balancing the cost, burden, and need for electronically stored information, courts and parties should apply the proportionality standard embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) and its state equivalents, which require consideration of importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

3. As soon as practicable, parties should confer and seek to reach agreement regarding the preservation and production of electronically stored information.

4. Discovery requests for electronically stored information should be as specific as possible; responses and objections to discovery should disclose the scope and limits of the production.

5. The obligation to preserve electronically stored information requires reasonable and good faith efforts to retain information that is expected to be relevant to claims or defenses in reasonably anticipated or pending litigation. However, it is unreasonable to expect parties to take every conceivable step or disproportionate steps to preserve each instance of relevant electronically stored information.

6. Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.

7. The requesting party has the burden on a motion to compel to show that the responding party’s steps to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information were inadequate.

8. The primary source of electronically stored information to be preserved and produced should be those readily accessible in the ordinary course. Only when electronically stored information is not available through such primary sources should parties move down a continuum of less accessible sources until the information requested to be preserved or produced is no longer proportional.

9. Absent a showing of special need and relevance, a responding party should not be required to preserve, review, or produce deleted, shadowed, fragmented, or residual electronically stored information.

10. Parties should take reasonable steps to safeguard electronically stored information, the disclosure or dissemination of which is subject to privileges, work product protections, privacy obligations, or other legally enforceable restrictions.

11. A responding party may satisfy its good faith obligation to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information by using technology and processes, such as data sampling, searching, or the use of selection criteria.

12. The production of electronically stored information should be made in the form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a that is reasonably usable given the nature of the electronically stored information and the proportional needs of the case.

13. The costs of preserving and producing relevant and proportionate electronically stored information ordinarily should be borne by the responding party.

14. The breach of a duty to preserve electronically stored information may be addressed by remedial measures, sanctions, or both: remedial measures are appropriate to cure prejudice; sanctions are appropriate only if a party acted with intent to deprive another party of the use of relevant electronically stored information.

Reprinted courtesy of The Sedona Conference®.

Go to www.thesedonaconference.org to download a free copy of the complete document for your personal use only.

e-Discovery Team ®