Insiders' Guide to Technology-Assisted Review (TAR). Коллектив авторов

(without corrupting or spoliating the evidence), standardized to isolate only the user-created files, deduplicated to reduce the cost of reviewing the same document twice, and then rendered for review in a hosted application that presents a genuine version of the original native file for analysis. Breakdowns during any of these steps will result in the loss of important information about the document and the potential that the data will be inadmissible if presented as evidence in a court of law.

      One of the greatest advantages of data processing is that we learn a lot about the data set as it is staged for review. The extracted text and metadata for each document contain troves of information that can be used to help organize these files in a meaningful way. That effort can be as simple as grouping the documents by custodian or by search results, or made more complex by introducing some of the early TAR systems such as clustering or ranking the documents based on underlying content. These solutions are the natural progression of performing legal discovery in the digital age and represent the starting point for modern TAR in application.

      TAR solutions, in all of the structural varieties outlined in Chapter 1, as well as during their early developmental states described above, still need to be executed through a workflow that involves trained professionals reviewing a collection of documents. Therefore, it is equally important to consider the review process alongside evolving technology to fully understand the evolutionary path.

      From the early 1980s to mid-1990s, legal document reviews were fairly straightforward: locate just enough space to accommodate any given set of boxes and the appropriate number of people needed to review the contents, fill the seats with junior lawyers or senior paralegals, and start the project. Reviews were exclusively linear in this time period; the contents of each box would be reviewed from front to back with some color coding or physical marking to identify relevant and/or privileged documents. Little if any thought was given to technology, infrastructure, or workspace ergonomics and only modest consideration was paid to the workforce supporting this effort – reviews were often performed in windowless basements or off-site archive facilities with limited amenities, effectively isolated from the legal case team.

      This underscores the fundamental problem with discovery in the digital age: it has become disconnected from the legal process that gave rise to the obligation in the first place. The ultimate goal of discovery is to facilitate a complete and accurate factual record and to put the salient facts on the table so practitioners can advocate for the best interests of their clients based on the merits of the case.

      Document review in the new millennium has responded to many of these concerns. Review centers have been moved out of the basement into fully modernized facilities with workspace designed to ensure the security of client data as well as reviewer comfort. Centers are equipped with redundant high-speed internet connections and a dedicated IT staff to support the technology infrastructure that is the backbone of a modern document review. There is an enormous pool of talented and experienced review attorneys with specialized substantive skills to meet the needs of any legal matter. Finally, workflows are being designed and implemented by experienced project managers to ensure that efficiencies are realized and costs are reduced wherever possible.

      Despite the many advances in early TAR solutions and document review protocols, the ability to accurately and consistently analyze data is simply not able to keep pace with the proliferation of ESI in today's corporate and social environments. There are simply too many data sources and too much raw data. So how can the legal community feel confident that modern TAR methods are achieving their intended purpose? How can modern TAR reconnect discovery with the merits of the case, reduce cost, and improve quality?

      The answer to that lies in the chapters ahead and detailed discussions of the next generation of TAR solutions, increased judicial acceptance, and the application of modern TAR to legal review above and beyond discovery.

      CHAPTER 1

      TAR: A Structural Analysis

      Fueled by advances in computer software and the ready availability of the computer hardware on which it runs, modern technology has made it possible to create and preserve almost unimaginable amounts of digital information. We create this information with technology running over electronic circuits at the speed of light. This information takes many forms: database fields and database entries, formal business documents (contracts, patents, health information, HR records), e-mail correspondence, text messages, e-commerce communications, voice recordings, photographs, video. We interact with this information directly, as producers of electronic documents or as recipients of electronic communication in one of its many guises. And we are often motivated – by interest or obligation – to interact with this digital information in less direct ways. Whether we want to recover information, explore it, extract it, classify it or leverage it, accessing the electronically stored information inevitably involves digital technology. In the simplest case, we depend on digital technology to display information or print it or play it audibly. But there are more complex cases in which we may not have identified how the information we need or want is represented in a document collection, or even whether it is represented in that collection at all.

      1

      See The Sedona Conference, The Sedona Conference Best Practices Commentary on the Use of Search and Information Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery, 8 SEDONA CONF. J. 189, 194, 199 (2007); Maura R. Grossman and Gordo

1

See The Sedona Conference, The Sedona Conference Best Practices Commentary on the Use of Search and Information Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery, 8 SEDONA CONF. J. 189, 194, 199 (2007); Maura R. Grossman and Gordon V. Cormack, Technology-Assisted Review in E-Discovery Can Be More Effective and More Efficient Than Exhaustive Manual Review, XVII RICH. J.L. & TECH. 11 (2011), jolt.richmond.edu/v17i3/article11.pdf.