EDD: Issues, Law, and Solutions: kriss

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Willie Wonka, Big Data, Pure Imagination

Hold your breath, Make a wish, Count to Three

Come with me …And you'll be
In a world of Pure imagination
Take a look, And you'll see Into your imagination

We'll begin
With a spin…Traveling in
The world of my creation…What we'll see
Will defy….Explanation

Maybe you thought that BeyondRecognition was merely the greates automatic “Visual Document Clustering” New Tool for Big Data. Well you'd be correct yet wrong. BeyondRecognition's powerful graphical engine can provide never before dreamed of levels of image enhancement.

BeyondRecognition's Visual-Similarity Clustering automatically processes and groups documents together for document boundary detection and document type classification, regardless of source and format — seamlessly processing native electronic files and scanned documents.

Automatic Visual Document Clustering means that visually similar pages are gathered based on their graphical, rather than textual, content. This avoids the errors normally encountered in extracted or generated text and leverages non-text graphical elements such as logos, form elements and other objects to greatly improve accuracy.

About BeyondRecognition

BeyondRecognition is a "textnology" company that has developed unique character, word and document attribute recognition and extraction capabilities for analyzing image-based documents. Disclosure of further details is being deferred until one or more patents on the process are filed. BeyondRecognition is working with a select number of companies in the electronic discovery and document management industries.
For more information, visit www.BeyondRecognition.net.

About Focus Data Management

FDM is the sales and marketing arm of BeyondRecognition. With offices on both coasts FDM is available to help you customize your Big Document Solutions using the power of BeyondRecognition. Contact us at 804.690.0010 or 562.822.7141

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

ReadySuite Now Integrated with Autonomy Introspect

ReadySuite Now Integrated with Autonomy Introspect

Posted: 26 Jun 2012 12:54 PM PDT

Richmond, VA – June 26, 2012 – Compiled Services, the developers of litigation support and e-Discovery software ReadySuite, today announced it has integrated ReadySuite with Autonomy’s Introspect document review tool. The integration was completed through Capax Global, a hosted e-Discovery provider whose clients needed ReadySuite’s popular load file conversion functionality to convert and export data to industry-standard load files.
“ReadySuite provided us with an easy, accurate way to extend the capabilities of Introspect,” said Allen Gurney, Director, Hosting and Professional Services at Capax Global. “Now our clients have the advanced load file conversion they need, seamlessly integrated into one of the best processing, review and production solutions available.”
In addition to ReadySuite’s load file conversion functionality, Capax’s Introspect users will also benefit from ReadySuite’s ability to provide a thorough quality control of its export sets and productions. Viewers for inspecting images, text and launching native files alongside document metadata and review coding; an advanced grid for filtering, grouping and sorting fields; comparing burned-in redactions; and other validation and verification steps are a part of ReadySuite’s integration.
“We were pleased to be able to provide additional functionality to Autonomy’s Introspect that just couldn’t be found elsewhere for a reasonable price and with a limited amount of development time,” said Justin Blessing, Director of Product Development at Compiled Services. “e-Discovery experts like Capax and Autonomy are realizing how easy it is to incorporate ReadySuite with their existing offering to improve functionality and quality of their clients’ e-Discovery output.”

More information about Capax Global can be found at www.capaxglobal.com.

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.