Must see articles for the week of March 9;
HBR Consulting 2015 Law Department Survey: eDiscovery Flash Survey Results: HBR compiled its 2015 information characterizing in-house eDiscovery from a series of roundtable discussions held nationally and reflecting varied geographic markets. I think that this is a fascinating validation of what we may be seeing from other perspectives in the legal technology industry; an increase in in-house eDiscovery employment opportunities, an increase in law firm eDiscovery outsourcing via corporate relationships and due to corporate pressure to economize, a growing acknowledgement and understanding of IG, etc.
Are China's new Data and Cyber-security Regulations a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing? by Rachel Teisch: eDiscovery in Asia has always been a challenge (particularly in China) because of “privacy” issues and government interference and this article by Rachel Teisch at Xerox recalls an in-country collection that I was involved with in 2010 where private security was required to secure our associates and the data despite all efforts of the GC. New personal privacy regulation may further hinder eDiscovery in China along with potential new cyber-security rules that would dramatically impact anyone doing business in the country just as Chinese companies expand their global presence.
Judge Peck's Latest: TAR now "Black Letter Law;" CAL Reduces Significance of Seed Set by Bob Ambrogi: In Judge Andrew Peck’s recent opinion in Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale SA, Case 1:14-cv-03042-RMB-AJP (S.D. N.Y. March 3, 2015) he references back to his groundbreaking Da Silva Moore decision and elaborates on the use of TAR technology in a case where the parties’ TAR protocol was at issue. Of particular interest, Judge Peck discusses the transparency of seed sets or training sets and he suggests that Continuous Active Learning (CAL) may alleviates some concerns where parties do not otherwise stipulate to openness and he warns that holding a TAR process to a higher standard (versus keyword search or manual review) is not appropriate.
Comments