E-Discovery Can Tame Emojis, But Can't Outpace Them
Due to their nature and growth, emojis pose a large, but not entirely insurmountable, challenge for e-discovery practitioners.
February 26, 2018 at 11:35 AM
4 minute read
Animoji being announced at the Sept. 12 Apple event. |
With the growth of text messages and social media content, modern e-discovery practitioners face a difficult time staying on top of all the mobile data they need to preserve, collect and review. While many are rising to the challenge, there are areas of mobile data that remain out of reach for even the best e-discovery platform or practitioner.
Emojis, for example, largely elude the grasp of many modern search tools. And while it is possible to reconfigure e-discovery search engines to account for such pictorial information, it is near impossible to account for all emoji types and iterations.
For now, most e-discovery tools just aren't made to handle this new type of content.
“In many cases, emoji search is just dead on arrival, because the search indexes haven't been configured to take emojis into account at all,” explained Jeff Kerr, CEO and founder of CaseFleet, a legal practice management software company. “So even if you enter into the search box the actual emoji character you are looking for with an emoji keyboard, there is no chance of it matching with anything.”
The problem stems from how search technologies deconstruct and interpret documents. “Search engines take various steps to sanitize [the data] they put in their indices to limit the amount of junk content and make sure that your search” yields relevant results, Kerr said. When dealing with a document, for example, search engines will discard spaces and punctuation, along with visuals such as emojis, to focus on words and phrases instead.
But this is far from the only problem. Even if one were to reconfigure search engines to account for emojis, “you would still have to enter that actual emoji into the search bar with an emoji keyboard, which I think for obvious reasons is just an impractical way of finding relevant documents,” Kerr said.
He added, “The better approach, which to my knowledge no e-discovery company has implemented to date, is to index documents containing emojis in a way that not only includes the actual emoji itself, but also its descriptive name.”
To be sure, reconfiguring search engines to account for emojis is “definitely not impossible,” Kerr said. He pointed to the Elasticsearch tool, which is built on open source software called Apache Lucence. “There is actually a plug-in for Elasticsearch that can be installed very easily to basically turn on the ability to index emojis.”
Still, Yaniv Schiff, director of digital forensics at QDiscovery, noted that while emojis can be identified and processed in documents by some technologies, when it comes to e-discovery review, “the level of support for emojis is dependent on the e-discovery platform” and can vary widely.
What's more, the variety and diversity of emoji content means that no one tool can ever account for every type of emoji that may pop up in a document.
While most emojis are categorized in Unicode, a computing standard that lists “all of the atomic pieces of which language is composed,” there are new emojis being created all the time, Kerr said.
Private companies and mobile users, for example, can create proprietary emojis for their own personal use outside of Unicode standards.
As an example, Kerr pointed to chat platform Slack, which allows companies to make their own emojis. Because of the platform, “people have their own private emoji collections” which cannot be easily indexed or, in some cases, even deciphered, he said.
But lagging behind an evolving data type is nothing new to the e-discovery field. “E-discovery platforms have a constant challenge with any emergent technology and any emerging data,” Schiff said. “Emoji is one example of that. There are all sort of other types of data that e-discovery has issues with, and that's just the nature of the business. It's impossible to keep up with every new type of data or every new type of file that is coming out.”
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Davis Polk Lands Spirit Chapter 11 Amid Bankruptcy Resurgence
- 2Construction Fall Nets $2.3 Million Settlement After Trial Begins
- 3By the Numbers: The 2024 LTN Law Firm Tech Survey
- 4Can The Threat of a Bar Complaint Be a Settlement Tool?
- 5Sentencing Commission Addresses Inconsistent Definitions of “Loss”
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