With New App, QDiscovery Looks to Speed Up Privilege Reviews
The launch of the QPrivAlert app, which links into Relativity's e-discovery and analytics technology, comes after the U.S. v Cohen case sparked widespread interest in automating privilege reviews.
August 29, 2018 at 02:30 PM
4 minute read
Against the backdrop of recent government court battles over privileged data, one legal technology company is looking to streamline how attorneys can identify privileged documents.
In late August 2018, e-discovery managed service provider QDiscovery released QPrivAlert, an application that links into Relativity's e-discovery and analytics technology to allow users to quickly identify potentially privileged documents in their data sets.
David Barrett, CEO of QDiscovery, noted that e-discovery practitioners can already use “technology assisted review (TAR) and use the advanced analytics within Relativity,” to identify potentially privileged content.
But the impetus to launch QPrivAlert, he explained, was to give e-discovery practitioners “an opportunity to potentially identify privileged documents much quicker.”
QPrivAlert works by automatically identifying certain fields of information in documents and grouping them accordingly. For example, it can show, on its proprietary dashboard, what emails are sent or received by a specific recipient, such as an attorney.
While Relativity already allows users to identify and group documents by certain fields, QPrivAlert adds additional fields, such as domain names, which can alert users to all emails sent or received from a law firm.
Barrett stressed that while the tool “makes it easier to get a high level overview of potentially privileged communication,” it does not definitively identify privileged content.
“We are not saying that QPrivAlert can replace a privilege review, we are saying that QPrivAlert allows for a workflow that automatically identifies potentially privileged information … so that the case team can choose how they want to do the review, but at the end of the day there needs to be a decision of whether the document is privileged or not.”
The release of QPrivAlert comes at a time when use of technology to help speed up privileged review has become a hotly debated topic, spurred mainly by the U.S. government's proposal in April to use TAR for the privilege review in the United States v. Cohen.
Government attorneys asked the judge overseeing the case to appoint former U.S. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas of the Southern District of New York as special master for the review, which concerned evidence collected from President Donald Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen.
While another special master was ultimately selected, Maas had argued that an AI-based technology-assisted review (TAR) processes developed by Maura Grossman, research professor in the David R. Cheriton School of Computer Science at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, could automate and speed up the identification of privileged documents.
The process employed by Grossman works similar to the QPrivAlert tool in that it extracts certain correspondence information from all the documents in the data set. Maas told Legaltech News that when reviewing documents, the TAR process “considers metadata as part of the algorithm, so it looks at things like the 'to' field, the 'from' field, the 'bcc' and 'cc' fields, and so forth.”
Once all communications between Cohen and his clients are found, he added, one could train a TAR e-discovery tool “through an iterative process to discriminate between privileged and non-privileged communications,” Maas added.
To be sure, the development and release of QPrivAlert was not meant to capitalize on the interest of the Cohen case's privilege review, but instead was fueled by client demand for a quicker way to identify potentially privileged content. Still, Barrett said the publicity of the case is an added benefit for the new tool. “I think it's very possible there will be some additional interest in this tool in light of that privilege process and case”
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
- 1On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
- 2After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
- 3Latham Lures Restructuring Partners From Weil, Paul Weiss
- 4Haynes Boone, Hicks Thomas Get Dismissal of $1.3B Claims in 2022 Freeport LNG Terminal Explosion
- 5Immigration Under the Trump Administration: Five Things to Expect in the First 90 Days
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