Evidence Optix Wants E-Discovery Negotiations to Work Smart, Not Hard
Evidence Optix, a new SaaS service from Prism Litigation Technology, uses a custom-made algorithm to identify the data custodians and sources that are likely to be most relevant during e-discovery.
October 16, 2019 at 09:30 AM
4 minute read
Last week, e-discovery advisory firm Prism Litigation Technology launched Evidence Optix, a new workflow tool aimed at mitigating some of the excess data sources and custodians bogging down the e-discovery process.
However, the notable twist in the SaaS-based solution may be the use of key metrics to help drive negotiations surrounding Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates parties discuss any issues related to preserving discoverable information.
Evidence Optix was designed to guide those discussions so legal teams aren't stuck footing the bill for the production of low-relevance information. Or, put another way: efficiency, efficiency, efficiency.
"I think law firms are looking for innovative, technology-enabled workflows that they can use as a differentiator of the way in which they perform legal services," said Mandi Ross, CEO of Prism.
What it is: Better to begin with what it isn't: An automated negotiating tool. Legal teams still have to handle all of the wheeling and dealing themselves, but the idea here is to focus those efforts for maximum value.
Evidence Optix starts by identifying relevant custodians and distributing them on a heat map along with data sources that require minimum effort to gather. In other words, these are items that legal teams will likely need to produce during e-discovery but shouldn't be too costly or burdensome to attain.
"This is really, from a negotiations perspective, where I should be starting my negotiation," Ross said.
On the other side of the camp—or dashboard, as the case may be—are low-relevance custodians and burdensome data sources that lawyers should attempt to negotiate around having to produce in an effort to curtail unnecessary costs during the e-discovery process.
"The value of the data in relation to the claims and defenses is probably minimal," Ross said.
Under the hood: Evidence Optix is a SaaS-based tool currently being hosted on Amazon Web Services, but the heavy lifting is really done by a custom-built algorithm that allows legal teams to configure their relevance scoring of a potential data custodian based on the parameters of an individual case.
During a custodian interview, for example, attorneys might ask whether or not a custodian has knowledge about "non-scientific aspects related to R&D," or if they were involved in sales or marketing. The weight each question ultimately carries toward overall relevancy can vary.
"We would work with the attorneys to come up with the appropriate scoring model," Ross said.
Legal teams might decide that all questions carry the same value, opt to assign different percentage points to each individual query, or initiate a "trump" option that automatically scores a custodian if they provide a certain answer to a specific question.
Why is it necessary: Prism first began developing Evidence Optix in order to meet the needs of a client they were engaging—specifically a case that involved 2,000 custodians around the world, 40 class actions and 11 different products at issue.
"I recognized that based on the mere size or scope of this matter that we had to develop a technology solution that would assist us with assessing and minimizing our preservation and collection obligation early in the process," Ross said.
In bringing the product to market, Prism is betting they aren't the only e-discovery professionals in the world who could benefit from a more targeted approach to negotiating productions. Ross indicated that while most lawyers understand the concept of proportionality in e-discovery, there may have been a gap preventing that understanding from being put into action.
"There really wasn't a method by which you could systematically align the facts to the claims and defenses and actually quantify the effort and burden of proposed discovery," she said.
The competition: Prism is banking on its algorithm to carry the weight in the competition department.
Companies such as Logikcull, DISCO and Exterro all offer solutions directed toward either streamlining the legal hold process or managing e-discovery workflows.
However, Ross thinks that the emphasis Evidence Optix places on defensibility can help it compete in a crowded marketplace—which is why patents are currently pending on Prism's scoring algorithm.
"That's really kind of our secret sauce because that really gives you the defensibility to support your position," Ross said.
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
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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