EDD: Issues, Law, and Solutions: john Lennon

Thursday, April 3, 2014

What BeyondRecognition Brings to Document Management

I found this article about BeyondRecognition written by Mimi Dionne which does an excellant job of explaining in plain english how BR can benefit every business with large unstructured data collections.

You can read the entire article right here

Ever heard of BeyondRecognition? If not, the time to learn is now. The Chantilly, Va.-based "document textnology" software provider offers document managers an alternative to optical character recognition (OCR), while delivering results with accuracy and speed.

How BeyondRecognition Works

BeyondRecognition (“BR”) may be a young innovation, but it is a viable alternative to OCR. It utilizes glyphs, a letter or character formed by pixels that are of a sufficiently different color from the background of the document as to be identifiable. BR groups like glyphs into clusters at the character and word level. BR converts one glyph per cluster to text as appropriate.

While OCR continuously decides what each glyph is, BeyondRecognition’s single instance technology need only recognize one glyph per cluster to form a catalog of letters or characters. The advantage: the return on investment of using single instance recognition technology is much higher with a smaller data set — a faster processing speed and better accuracy rate — which shortens the Records Management program’s work breakdown structure significantly.

Because BeyondRecognition software is glyph dependent — not text — it is more versatile:

BR is language agnostic. It currently recognizes over forty languages.
BR is symbology agnostic. It can recognize and relate non-text elements.
BR clusters visual similarities. It works on all kinds of documents.
BR is over ninety-nine percent accurate.
BR scales. It can analyze millions of pages per day per the BeyondRecognition server.

BeyondRecognition’s zonal attribute extraction permits subject matter experts to extract attributes from document classifications by clicking and dragging zones on one document per document type cluster.

Again for more of Mimi's article click here

Monday, July 9, 2012

John Lennon's "IMAGINE" recast as the greatest song ever written about Predictive Coding

John pondering Cloud Based eDiscovery solutions before it was cool

My friend, and the resident genius behind BeyondRecognition: John Martin gets a tip of the hat for his ode to Predictive Coding - probably, err without a doubt the greatest song ever written about Predictive Coding, or any branch of eDiscovery. Way to keep it real John Martin

Imagine . . . (Not the John Lennon version)

Imagine there's reliable Predictive Coding
It's easy if you try
No definitive precision
The results, we're not sure why
Imagine all the people that you wouldn't need

Imagine there's no objections
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to explain or cry for
And no sanctions too
Imagine all the people you don't have to pay

You, you may say
I'm a vendor, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll believe us
Then Predictive Coding can just be fun

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.