It’ll probably come as no real surprise that, during our discussions, it became abundantly clear that they’d significant digital discovery technology needs. Several were still reviewing PST files manually in Outlook; others were Tiffing numerous pages of papers ahead of right launching in to a old-fashioned review application for eyes-on review. That’s right, nary a trace of early case examination, clear search, or culling to be found.
Regrettably, no information there. What was fascinating for us was the a reaction to the newest release of the Clearwell E-Discovery Platform, Version 5.5. Version 5.5 includes considerable new performance, including drastically improved performance and scalability plus a quantity of substantial processing, investigation, assessment, and production changes. But, along with these functions, we have rolled out a set of e-discovery guidelines templates built to ensure it is vastly easier for organizations to implement a proper e-discovery strategy that develops on the integral nature of our platform. And it absolutely was the prospect of such a methodology, much more than the technology, that people were buzzing about at the summit.
That can not continue, while the limits are growing. Just take the recent case of Mt. Hawley Ins. Denver. v. Felman Prod., Inc. Dean will plunge in to this situation in much more detail in a future post, but it is very pertinent to the methodology versus technology dialogue in that it shows what sort of methodology problem could cause a fateful technology problem to be neglected. The court found the inadvertent production was not “solely attributable” to a problem using a Concordance index, and that the plaintiff “failed to perform critical quality-control sampling” to determine if the production was appropriate. Freedom was waived.
What’s the solution? We think that we’re to some thing with Clearwell 5.5, in that we may, uniquely among goods, marry together technology and methodology in one…