E-Discovery Leaders Look to Methodology, Not AI, To Update Toolkits
Although artificial intelligence is the buzzword of the season, e-discovery leaders see only a limited use for it in improving e-discovery workflows.
November 28, 2017 at 08:00 AM
3 minute read
E-discovery has historically held a central role in the conversation around technology in the legal industry, but 2017 has seen great traction in other technologies. Throughout the year, law firm and in-house leaders have directed their excitement toward technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain, leaving some to wonder if and how these technologies may apply in the e-discovery space.
On December 1, dubbed “E-Discovery Day,” e-discovery software group Exterro will host a webcast titled “Updating Your E-Discovery Toolkit” to discuss some of the ways in which these new technologies have shaped the e-discovery landscape going into 2018. Many have found that the year's major transformations around e-discovery have been less about specific technologies, and more about procedures.
“I've been pleased to see e-discovery strategy become a bigger part of what we are talking about as the year comes to a close,” e-discovery blogger and computer forensics specialist Craig Ball told LTN. Ball, who will present in the webinar, cited the Jaws theme to add, “Insofar as technology strategy, the biggest focus seems to be on cybersecurity as many hear the da-DUM-da-DUM-da-DUM of [the EU Global Data Protection Regulation] swimming towards America.”
Maura Grossman, another webinar panelist and research professor at University of Waterloo, saw a similar trend among e-discovery staff, though perhaps buoyed more by increasing familiarity with the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) than a fear of penalties.
“My impression is that requesting parties have become a lot more savvy in the past year. They are asking more detailed and sophisticated questions about ESI sources, technologies, and processes,” she noted.
AI has had a fairly mixed reception among e-discovery specialists. Ralph Losey, e-discovery specialist and principal at Jackson Lewis, finds that predictive coding, an algorithmic machine learning process, has now become something of an industry standard for e-discovery work in large cases of more than 100,000 documents. At this point, Losey doesn't see quite as much use in smaller cases, but that could change.
“It has not penetrated down into the medium and small size cases yet, but will one day. For that to happen, and for uniform quality controls to take place, an open-source methodology will have to be established and software prices will have to come down even further,” he said.
Others are seeing a far more limited use for AI in e-discovery. “More and more firms are using supervised machine learning tools for electronic discovery, due diligence, and contract review, but I would not say their use is ubiquitous,” Grossman noted.
While e-discovery leaders see increasing use of predictive coding and machine learning for e-discovery matters, they see through the hype that accompanies AI and machine learning in other fields. “Is AI an integral part of firm e-discovery processes? No way, save for firms calling what analytics they already had AI, because 'AI' sounds much cooler than 'what we already had,'” Ball said.
AI and other buzz-worthy technology providers tout price points that often put them beyond the scope of e-discovery leaders' budgetary constraints. What e-discovery teams can improve, however, is the processes that accompany them.
“Software improvement by vendors should be a constant process, but that is usually beyond the direct control of lawyers. What we can control is the methodology,” Losey noted.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFederal Judge Rejects Lyft's 'Competitive Harm' Claims in Attempt to Seal Safety Procedures, Storage Information
4 minute readCalifornia Supreme Court Affirms $2.5M Discovery Sanction Against Los Angeles
4 minute readCiting 'Sloppy' Discovery, Pa. Federal Judge Imposes Sanctions on Insurance Carrier, Calls Out Counsel
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250