EDD: Issues, Law, and Solutions: ReadySuite v4.3 Released, Includes Improved PDF Endorsing Features

Thursday, June 28, 2012

ReadySuite v4.3 Released, Includes Improved PDF Endorsing Features

Posted Jun 28, 2012 in News

Richmond, VA – June 28, 2012 – Compiled Services, the developers of litigation support and e-Discovery software ReadySuite, today announced the latest release of the software, version 4.3, with a number of improvements and upgrades . This new version allows users to add annotations and overlays to existing PDF documents without losing the ability to search the PDF. It also has improved speed for faster navigation through documents, enhanced quality checking, and the option to copy source files for images to improve export performance, among other changes.

Improvements to the PDF endorsing features in ReadySuite mark a significant change from past versions of the software. Users will now be able to add Bates numbers, document identifiers, confidential stamps and metadata fields to PDFs, without losing the underlying text and OCR of the PDF document. With the latest version, when adding endorsements to PDF documents, the file size will not increase significantly and searching for text in the PDF will remain intact.

Users performing important quality checks of their productions will now notice a significant speed improvement when navigating between larger documents, due to enhancements in ReadySuite’s thumbnail handling. Exporting documents and image files from ReadySuite will also see a significant speed improvement, with the ability to directly copy the source image files. In prior versions, all images exported were passed through ReadySuite’s imaging engine in case there were clean-up functions or endorsements being added. With ReadySuite 4.3, if there are no changes to the underlying image, the image file can be copied instead.

“At Compiled Services, we are always looking for areas to innovate and add to and improve ReadySuite,” said Justin Blessing, Director of Product Development at Compiled Services. “Our users were looking for better ways to handle PDF endorsements, without adding costly OCR processing and larger file sizes to the mix. I believe our developments here are one-of-a-kind in the industry and will allow users to better manage their PDF documents involved in e-Discovery and regulatory issues.”

ReadySuite is a bundled suite of specialized litigation software for handling various document related tasks. The software includes modules for reviewing, validating, merging, and manipulating load files, converting among multiple image formats such as TIFF and PDF, applying or removing endorsements from image sets, generating searchable text and PDF files using OCR, and batch printing image sets to high capacity printers.

The company recently released a free white paper entitled “The Need for e-Discovery Quality Control in the Age of Digital Data,” which covers the current state of quality control in the e-Discovery industry, areas for improvement and a possible solution. To download the white paper, click here.

A one-year subscription of ReadySuite can be purchased for $1,179.95 at our online store here. A free 14-day trial of ReadySuite can be downloaded here.

For a list of changes in ReadySuite v4.3, view our change log.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Sedona Principles 2nd ed.

1. Electronically stored information is potentially discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 or its state equivalents. Organizations must properly preserve electronically stored information that can reasonably be anticipated to be relevant to litigation.
2. When balancing the cost, burden, and need for electronically stored information, courts and parties should apply the proportionality standard embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) and its state equivalents, which require consideration of the technological feasibility and realistic costs of preserving, retrieving, reviewing, and producing electronically stored information, as well as the nature of the litigation and the amount in controversy.
3. Parties should confer early in discovery regarding the preservation and production of electronically stored information when these matters are at issue in the litigation and seek to agree on the scope of each party’s rights and responsibilities.
4. Discovery requests for electronically stored information should be as clear as possible, while responses and objections to discovery should disclose the scope and limits of the production.
5. The obligation to preserve electronically stored information requires reasonable and good faith efforts to retain information that may be relevant to pending or threatened litigation. However, it is unreasonable to expect parties to take every conceivable step to preserve all potentially relevant electronically stored information.
6. Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.
7. The requesting party has the burden on a motion to compel to show that the responding party’s steps to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information were inadequate.
8. The primary source of electronically stored information for production should be active data and information. Resort to disaster recovery backup tapes and other sources of electronically stored information that are not reasonably accessible requires the requesting party to demonstrate need and relevance that outweigh the costs and burdens of retrieving and processing the electronically stored information from such sources, including the disruption of business and information management activities.
9. Absent a showing of special need and relevance, a responding party should not be required to preserve, review, or produce deleted, shadowed, fragmented, or residual electronically stored information.
10. A responding party should follow reasonable procedures to protect privileges and objections in connection with the production of electronically stored information.
11. A responding party may satisfy its good faith obligation to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information by using electronic tools and processes, such as data sampling, searching, or the use of selection criteria, to identify data reasonably likely to contain relevant information.
12. Absent party agreement or court order specifying the form or forms of production, production should be made in the form or forms in which the information is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form, taking into account the need to produce reasonably accessible metadata that will enable the receiving party to have the same ability to access, search, and display the information as the producing party where appropriate or necessary in light of the nature of the information and the needs of the case.
13. Absent a specific objection, party agreement or court order, the reasonable costs of retrieving and reviewing electronically stored information should be borne by the responding party, unless the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business. If the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business, then, absent special circumstances, the costs of retrieving and reviewing such electronic information may be shared by or shifted to the requesting party.
14. Sanctions, including spoliation ﬁndings, should be considered by the court only if it finds that there was a clear duty to preserve, a culpable failure to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information, and a reasonable probability that the loss of the evidence has materially prejudiced the adverse party.
Copyright © 2007 The Sedona Conference®. All Rights Reserved.
Reprinted courtesy of The Sedona Conference®.
Go to http://www.thesedonaconference.org/ to download a free copy of the complete document for your personal use only.