ReadySuite 3.5 Released: Litigation Supports' Little Gem

We’re excited to release new features, enhancements, and fixes to ReadySuite – ourspecialized bundle of utilities for handling various documents and imaging tasks.

Features include a new ‘Check Resources’ wizard, which allows you to re-check the integrity of your documents after the import process. In addition, you can identify the pages in a document that are color or blank using our sophisticated object detection algorithm. Also, we added the ability to detect text in PDF documents, useful for determining files that may need to be OCRed.

Further, we’ve added the ability to export text along with your images using the ‘Export Documents’ wizard. Various options will allow you to roll single-page text to multi-page, word wrap lines at a specified column, force output file encoding to ASCII or UTF-8, and create placeholder text files for documents with no text.

Highlighted on our development blog are some changes we’ve made to the delimited text import process. Next week, we’ll post more updates outlining other important changes made, including the new ‘Batch Manager’, for updating paths of documents already imported.

Our pricing structure has also slightly changed – which primarily affects those using the functionality provided in ReadyConvert. We will now be pricing ReadyConvert with our standard support package at $79.95. If you’d like to upgrade to ReadySuite, you can purchase the entire package at $499.95 with our standard support package or for $579.95 with our priority support package.

To learn about other features provided in ReadySuite, follow our product page. Additionally, you may get started with ReadySuite by downloading our 14-day trial or by contacting oursales staff.

Got ECA? Consider Data Sampling.

It seems like everywhere you turn in litigation support circles Early Case Assessment (ECA) is thrown around like a frisbee at a frat party. However, despite its frequency in conversation, ECA can mean much different things to many different people in different cases. In the simplest of matters, ECA refers to the use of processing technology to "cull" or filter data that does not meet the scope of relevance in a given case. In more complex matters, ECA can entail the application of technologies to not only filter irrelevant data, but to leverage the processed information in order to gain a better understanding of the facts and merits of the case. Undoubtedly, both ECA applications are an important area of focus when it comes to reducing the risks and costs associated with litigation.

When confronted with an almost impossible data analysis problem, a tried and true technique to solve it has been the use of sampling. The mathematical analysis behind sampling is something that has been studied for quite a number of years. Also, sampling has also been put into practice for well over seventy years, in many fields from predicting results of elections and assessing quality of electric bulbs. Why not do the same for certifying your ESI productions, while also addressing defensibility and reasonableness?

Sampling as a way to assess quality is something the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) Search Group authors covered in detail, with a strategy in a comprehensive EDRM Search Guide (see Section 9.5 and Appendix 2). And, while much of that work is still to hit the mainstream litigation scene as a general practice, I was pleasantly surprised to see it receive attention from a fellow blogger and litigator, Nick Brestoff, who highlighted this in a very thoughtfully crafted article in Law.com, titled A Strategy to Sample All the ESI You Need. I commend his article for helping the community understand the practical difficulties in getting a certifiable result that attorneys can stand behind. And, it is highly likely that the current practice is to certify your electronic discovery without a real measure of validity behind it.

That leads us to back to the mechanics of sampling, the math behind it, and its defensibility. As the EDRM Search Guide notes, meaningful sampling can only be done by the one who has the data, i.e., the producing party. While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures (FRCP) Rule 26(a) lists required disclosures as well as signing and certification guidelines per Rule 26 (g), there is no agreed upon way to specify sampling parameters as well as the results of sampling.It is in this context, Nick Brestoff’s article is significant – it explores practical ways in which the producing party can shift the sampling mechanics to the requesting party. I do think, however,that there is a logistical problem with this–most litigators will balk at producing the largely irrelevant and non-responsive items to the other side.

Perhaps the real need is for the requesting party to specify in their Rule 26 (b) meet and confer, that the production be certified for completeness by also including a statement on sampling and its results. A simple request such as, “Sample the data for 98% confidence level and 2% error rate, and report the number of responsive documents” could be sufficient. The producing side can perform random sampling, per the sampling goals for the above request, selecting 13526 documents (based on the sampling table of EDRM Search Guide). This allows the attorneys representing the producing party to certify and sign off on an agreed-upon target.

In addition to the EDRM Search Guide, The Sedona Conference, Working Group Commentary, Achieving Quality in the E-Discovery Process is an indispensable resource for understanding the role of sampling. This paper discusses at length, several sampling methods, their applicability for various purposes, including certifying that the results meet a certain quality criteria. In addition, a number of electronic discovery cases have mentioned sampling as a way of overcoming the explosion of data volumes. A primary application of sampling is for evaluating proportionality claims, something that has moved from a simple assertion into an informed argument, with specificity on proving cost burden.

In Barrera v. Boughton, 2010 WL 3926070 (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2010), the court ruled that a phased approach to ESI discovery is appropriate and quotes an earlier case, S.E.C v. Collins & Aikman Corp, 256 F.R.D. 403, 418 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), that “[t]he concept of sampling to test both the cost and the yield is now part of the mainstream approach to electronic discovery.” The sampling recommendation in this instance was both a reduction of number of custodians from forty to three, as well as a significant reduction in the date range for the search. What was initially a $60,000 ESI search and discovery effort was reduced drastically to under $13,000.

Similarly, sampling is suggested in both M. Adams & Assoc., L.L.C. v. Fujitsu Ltd., No. 1:05-CV-64, 2010 WL 1901776, and Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Felman Prod., Inc. as a way to perform a small set of search terms on a smaller number of custodians so as to get a sense for the larger electronic discovery costs.Clearone Communications v. Chiang offers another example of sampling by the use of Boolean logic to combine more common search terms thereby avoiding over-inclusiveness.

Per the Sedona commentary definitions, this type of sampling is referred to as “judgmental sampling” wherein the practitioner has a general sense of which of the several custodians and date range is most likely to offer the greatest yield. As judgmental sampling becomes more widely adopted as a way of controlling costs, electronic discovery sampling can embrace the benefits of statistical sampling as well. It is a natural next step, as even with narrow sampling criteria of judgmental sampling, the cost of review can be high. One area where statistical sampling has an advantage is that quantifiable measures of error and confidence intervals are possible, while judgmental sampling has no such formal measurement. Again, if the requesting party wishes to ensure a level of completeness and quality and if the producing party needs a basis for certifying their productions, statistical sampling can be a powerful aid.

If you've gotten this far - I would be remiss if I failed to give a shout out to the VCU Rams and Richmond Spiders basketball teams for representing our fine city in the Sweet 16 of the NCAA Basketball Tourney.

Case law : Cops In California Don't Need A Warrant To Search Your Cell Phone For Info

Search and Seizure
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particulary describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The next time you're in California, you might not want to bring your cell phone with you. Especially if you aren't planning on behaving yourself.

On January 3rd, 2011, California’s Supreme Court ruled in The People v. Gregory Diaz that phones carried at the time by suspects apprehended by police do not have Fourth Amendment protections. The case began in 2007 with the arrest of Gregory Diaz, for selling a controlled substance. Diaz was taken to a police station, where a detective removed Diaz’s phone from his person, and placed it with other evidence collected in the case. The arresting officer began to interview Diaz, and in the course of the interview, looked at the text messages on Diaz’s phone. One read “6 4 80,” or 6 pills for $80. Confronted with this text, Diaz admitted to selling drugs.



In court, however, he argued that viewing of his text messages, by police and without a warrant, violated his Fourth Amendment protections to be secure in is person, papers and effects against warrantless search. An exception to this protection exists: “incident to lawful arrest,” (United States v. Robinson (1973)) an officer may search an arrested suspect and the area immediately around him. Diaz argued that since cell phones today carry huge amounts of information, including information about associates, e-mails, text messages, records of calls and other such revealing data, it should not be subject a search, like clothing or a cigarette package were in prior case law, but rather should be treated like a closed container or box—that once separate from the actor in a significant period of time and space, it should not subject to warrantless search (United States v. Chadwick).



Dissenters on the California court found this argument persuasive; however, the court held that the character of seize evidence did not determine whether it could be searched; merely its possession or control by the actor at time of arrest made it eligible for a later search. The court made a comparison to a traveler carrying a paper bag with some personal effects, and an executive with a locked attaché case. Both, the court reasoned, should share equal protections. So then should a phone carry no more protection than other, unprotected methods of carrying personal information; perhaps an address book, or other “small spatial container” with “highly personal, intimate and private information, such a photographs, letters or diaries”.

It seems to me that the court seems to make fundamental misunderstandings about the digital nature of these devices; a cell phone can contain thousands of emails, photographs, text messages, records of meetings and birthdays, information about associates unlimited in depth and in breadth, and huge numbers of personal notes analogous to those found in a diary. A cell phone can easily hold, in its small form, more enough information to fill dozens of scrapbooks with photographs, stuff whole briefcases with e-mails and text messages, were they to be printed out on paper, fill many, many address books with information about friends and acquaintances, hold years’ worth of information that may take several calendars or planners to hold. In short, cell phones hold more information than could ever be carried by an individual, were it not in a digital form. In ignoring this fact, the court sets a dangerous precedent where a simple arrest can allow authorities to view records containing a record of the individual’s entire life since possessing a cell phone, a terrifying prospect for those with any desire to maintain protection from searches unreasonable in scope and breadth. Laptop computers and the like were not addressed and begs the question: If your phone is password protected, would they need a warrant to use some kind of equipment to get into it? Because having to break into a phone puts it clearly beyond the "plain view" rules to me.It will be interesting to see how this progresses.

This doesn't seem to apply to your everyday traffic stop, Still, this seems invasive, and not all the justices were in agreement with the ruling

Dissenters Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos Moreno wrote:

"The potential intrusion on informational privacy involved in a police search of a person's mobile phone, smartphone or handheld computer is unique among searches of an arrestee's person and effects."

California Deputy Attorney General Victoria Wilson told the media that the split decisions in California and Ohio could lead the U.S. Supreme Court to personally look into the issue of police searching cell phones.

The Taxonomy of Data Security

Occasionally Superior Document Services receives requests from customers and potential customers wanting assurance that their highly confidential data is secure while utilizing Superior's online hosting platform RELATIVITY. Superior thinks it is important for both our potential and current business partners to recieve full disclosure regarding how our data center partnership works. With razor sharp clarity I understand the importance of transparency when it comes to explaining our security process'.

First and most importantly our data center is interconnected by a high performance, fully-redundant private network that ensures the security, integrity and availability of our customers' business applications and technology infrastructure. Highly skilled technical personnel maintain the both data center and our review platform 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The data center, located right here in Richmond Virginia is engineered with multiple levels of security, uninterruptible power, redundant HVAC systems, fire suppression and around-the-clock monitoring and management.

Level 1: Proximity card access with PIN is required to enter the building. You are not yet in the data center.
Level 2: Proximity card access with Biometric (fingerprint) scan is required to enter the data center.
Level 3: All hardware is secured in a locked cage or steel mesh cabinets fitted with combination locks.
Level 4: Video surveillance cameras are placed throughout the facility.
Level 5: Staffed 24x7x365



Our data center is engineered with an uninterruptible power system and backup generator to deliver seamless power. In the event of a commercial power failure, our isolated UPS system will provide immediate backup power until diesel generators take over the load and continue operation of the center.

With best-in-class environmental HVAC units to control and monitor the temperature and humidity in the data center our redundant HVAC keep sthe average temperature in each data center at 70 degrees Fahrenheit to ensure a consistent operating atmosphere for your mission critical technology infrastructure.

The data center utilizes dry-fire suppression systems that can be deployed manually, or by a sequence of three failures anywhere in a data center zone. Each facility is also fully equipped with smoke and heat detection sensors as well as fire doors and handheld gas-based fire extinguishers.

Superiors' network infrastructure provides customers with reliable connectivity and fast performance and includes around-the-clock monitoring, notification and reporting Our management incorporates ‘best practice’ guidance from outside standards, such as ISO 27002, DSS, and others when designing and implementing our controls, but we customize our controls based on what makes the most sense for us and our customers. while minimizing or eliminating potential downtime regardless of matter size, number of reviewers, or the number of matters under active management.

Our data center's SAS 70 certification is intended to give our customers confidence that we are providing a high level of security, monitoring and management of their valuable business assets to help them meet the increasing compliance requirements of HIPAA, HITECH, Sarbanes Oxley, Graham Leach Bliley and other legal and regulatory regimes.

In today’s legal and regulatory environment, attorneys increasingly confront complicated electronic discovery scenarios involving multiple matters and numerous parties that can extend over many years. Superiors clients can be confident that we have implemented state-of-the-art security measures to protect their data - because in the end game - data security is priority one.

Our review platform - Kcura's Relativity employs a highly granular security architecture. This means that any object, such as a user, tag, field of metadata, document, collection of documents, or even highlights and redactions, can be secured, limiting access to users without permissions. Relativity system administrators have the ability to grant or deny any of these permissions on a customized basis

Relativity’s security architecture allows a collection of data to undergo expert review in a limited environment, or in an expanded environment by the case team, eliminating the need for multiple iterations of the same database. In addition to workflow-based security, Relativity provides a variety of secure authentication methods. With a standard Microsoft infrastructure, Relativity allows IT teams to secure and back up data with the same strategies they employ for other enterprise systems.

Benefits to our law firm clients of the Relativity security model include:
Native files and TIFF images streamed into local memory, preventing fragments of sensitive documents from being left on a workstation hard drive
User or group access restricted to specific IP addresses
Restrictions on printing, copying text, and even disabling “print screen”
Customized access where users see only the data, documents, and features to which they have rights
The ability to create secure subsets of documents for experts and clients
Securable coding forms, metadata fields, and document annotation/redactions, allowing for multi-party access
RSA integration to provide Two-Factor authentication
A secured 128-bit SSL encryption, the same used by online financial institutions storing personal information.

You know the Law.
We know litigation support.