David Rostov, Chief Executive Officer of Lighthouse Document Technologies, has 20 years of experience in senior leadership positions and managing MORE...



Early Case Assessment

Electronic Discovery Cost

Electronic Discovery Processing

Electronic Discovery Strategy

Electronic Discovery Vendor Selection

Hosted Legal Review




Enter keywords:


ADD THIS BLOG to your feeds or subscribe by email using the form below.


Ad Law Access - Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

Ad Law By Request - Reed Smith Law Firm

Antitrust Law Blog - Sheppard Mullin Law Firm

Art + Law + Blog - Bryan Cave Law Firm

Art Law Gallery - Sheppard Mullin Law Firm

Art Law Lawyer & Attorney - Fox Rothschild Law Firm

Australian Trade Marks Law Blog - Nicholas Weston Law Firm

Broadcast Law Blog - Davis Wright Tremaine Law Firm

CHIP Intellectual Property Law Blog - Perkins Coie Law Firm

California Biotech Law Blog - Prinz Law Firm

California Defamation Law Blog - Adrianos Facchetti Law Firm

Chicago IP Litigation Blog - R. David Donoghue

Communications Law Blog - Fletcher Heald & Hildreth Law Firm

Computer Forensics and E-Discovery Blog - Electronic Evidence Retrieval LLC

Contemporary Intellectual Property, Licensing & Information Law - Raymond Nimmer

Contingent Fee Business Litigation Blog - McClanahan Myers Espey Law Firm

Corporate Securities Law Blog - Sheppard Mullin Law Firm

Covering your Ads - Sheppard Mullin Law Firm

Creativity Lifecycle - MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman Law Firm

Delaware Patent Litigation Report - Morris James Law Firm

Morgan & Morgan - Personal Injury Litigation Forthepeople.com


Relativity Pivot as a Review Quality Control Measure

The Power of Relativity Pivot on Case Strategy

The Power of Relativity Pivot in Early Case Assessment

Collections: Top 5 Questions

Requesting Data: More is Better

Electronic discovery insight & commentary from David Rostov at Lighthouse Document Technology, offering updates related to e-discovery, EDD, Meta data, forensic & data collections, data recovery, ESI consulting, litigation support, document review, paper discovery & producing electronic data.

Electronic Discovery Made Easy

Relativity Pivot as a Review Quality Control Measure


By Debora Motyka Jones

Following up on my last few blogs, you can also create various charts in Pivot to show you what your reviewers are doing, including how they are tagging documents, and quickly identify any possible quality issues. As you can see below, you can use Pivot’s bar graph capabilities to identify that one reviewer is disproportionately tagging documents as “Not Responsive.” You can link to the documents he or she has tagged as non-responsive to take a closer look and find out whether it is a quality issue, or merely that they have received several batches of irrelevant documents.

TAGS: Hosted Legal Review, Hosted Review, Pivot, Relativity, Relativity 6, Relativity Pivot, Review Quality Control, eDiscovery, electronic discovery

The Power of Relativity Pivot on Case Strategy


By Debora Motyka Jones

I can just go on and on about Relativity’s Pivot feature. I have already bragged about its early case assessment potential (see earlier blog posting) but there is more…it can also help you get an overview of the issues in your case. For example, you can run a pie chart of the “issues” coding by custodian. As you can see in the example below, taken from a sales demo database, most of the documents related to the “Shady Investments” issue involve a custodian named Paul Allen, and to a lesser extent, a custodian named Eric Bass. Using this information, the lawyer on this case can now focus on these two custodians for this particular issue and exclude other individuals, such as Larry May or Thomas Martin, who have no documents related to Shady Investments. By running this analysis for each of the issues in your case, you are able to target further discovery and your depositions in your case.

TAGS: 6, Hosted Legal Review, Legal, Pivot, Relativity, case, hosted, review, strategy, tools

The Power of Relativity Pivot in Early Case Assessment


By Debora Motyka Jones

When kCura released Relativity Version Six earlier this month, I was skeptical of its improvements. Many times, new software releases include minor upgrades or backend tweaks that do not affect my day-to-day life. Boy did kCura prove me wrong on this one. Though a few of the upgrades were the usual “boring” tweaks, the addition of Pivot was enough to blow me away. Pivot is a new analysis tool that allows users to get an overview of their case in a visual format. Not only does it step up Relativity’s visual appeal, but it is also useful for gaining insight into your case. With Pivot, you can now evaluate your case in an entirely new way. For example, you can analyze email domains, see the intersection between keywords by custodian and create timelines. This analysis is presented visually in lists, pie charts, line graphs or bar graphs. These graphs can be used for early case assessment, case strategy and review quality control. This is a huge improvement to Relativity allowing you to use this tool for more than just linear review and clustering.

Thanks to the power of Pivot, Relativity can now be used as a culling tool before you start your review. If you are not using a separate ECA tool, you can rely on the Pivot feature to gain some similar ECA tool advantages. You can use the Pivot feature to view timelines of your case and assess the relevant dates as well as to cull out certain categories of documents. For example, in just a few minutes, and a few clicks of your mouse, you can segregate groups of documents and prioritize your review. Pivot allows you to obtain a list of the sender domains in your data. From this list, you can identify potential irrelevant domains and/or potentially privileged documents (see screen shot below). By clicking on the domain, you can see all the documents in the particular domain. For the potentially privileged documents, you can bulk batch them and send to your team for immediate privilege review. For the likely irrelevant domains, you can scroll through a sampling of the documents and when you are satisfied that the documents are not in fact relevant, you can bulk tag them as such and avoid the time and expense of reviewing junk mail.

You can also use the line graph feature to give you an idea of what months and/or years to focus discovery on and identify any issues with your discovery to-date. By creating a graph such as the one below, you can identify all the sent dates for your custodians. The graph below, created using data in a sales database, shows that the custodian Larry Campbell sent a large number of emails in November 2000 and May 2001. If these same peaks appear in other custodians, you may be able to focus your case around this period. This chart also helps you identify that there are some issues with the sent dates in your data—there should not be emails from 1979 and 2020. You can follow up on these data concerns early on in your case whereas without a timeline you may not have noticed this anomaly.

TAGS:  6, ECA, Early Case Assessment, Pivot, Relativity, assessment, benefits, case, early, hosted, review, tools

Collections: Top 5 Questions


By David Rostov and Debora Motyka Jones

There is a fair amount of confusion regarding collections of client data.  To help guide your approach to collections, we have provided an overview of the top five questions and their answers.

How should collections be performed?

Targeted Collection versus Full Forensic Collection?

Reduces cost and time due to faster collection time and less data.

It does not preserve deleted data.

Some additional spoliation risk.

The methodology may be easier to challenge in court.

Preserves all data reducing the risk of spoliation.

Has greater legal defensibility.

However, it is more expensive.

If files are deleted, what can be recovered?

If files are deleted, what cannot be recovered?

(even in a lab environment).

What are the leading industry software tools for collection?

TAGS:  Collections, Encase, FTK, data, david, debora, discovery, document, electronic, forensic, jones, lighthouse, litigation, rostov, spoliation, technologies, tools, vendors

Top Five Questions to Ask When Choosing an E-Discovery Vendor


By David Rostov and Debora Motyka Jones

We often get questions from our clients about how best to select an electronic discovery vendor.  Important considerations in this process are what questions to ask, how best to compare vendors and what are the important issues that are typically missed in the selection process.  In particular, our clients often tell us that they sometimes struggle in the vendor selection phase to be able to best assess the quality and capabilities of a vendor.  Given the challenges of choosing the right vendor, we often hear that law firms default to making their decision based almost exclusively on price considerations.

We put together a short list of key questions that can help in the eDiscovery vendor selection process.



Top Questions To Ask When Choosing an E-Discovery Vendor

Scope of Services

Expertise (Not all vendors are created equal; and it is not all about price)

Quality of Services

Customer Service

Technical Specifications

TAGS:  vendor, Collections, Electronic Discovery Costs, Electronic Discovery Processing, Electronic Discovery Vendor Selection, eDiscovery questions, electronic discovery vendor, selection

Big Changes in Early Case Assessment


There are some very exciting trends and developments going on in the Early Case Assessment (“ECA”) phase of litigation. ECA is a critical part of the litigation process since it is a time to perform a preliminary analysis of the merits of a case, claims, likely defenses and estimate of the cost of the case. Usually the ECA is conducted in the first 90 days from the time a case is filed. There is general agreement that ECA improves litigation outcomes. For example, a survey by LexisNexis  showed that ECA results in favorable outcomes in 76% of cases and reduces litigation expenses in 50% of cases.

In the digital era, the BIG CHALLENGE is getting access to the electronic data early in the ECA process and having the tools to allow the legal team to evaluate the case based on a preliminary review of the evidence. This is both a technology challenge as well as a cost challenge. The good news is that there are now a number of early case assessment tools on the market that can solve this problem. We are big fans of Clearwell for this and our clients are seeing the value.


The key benefits from this are:

Speeding up access to client data. The documents can be fully indexed and available to review within hours rather than weeks.

An easy to use web interface. This means it is available anywhere and anytime. There is no need to rely on internal IT resources and no need to purchase additional software or hardware.

Collaboration between in-house counsel and outside counsel. It is very easy to have the legal team work together to examine key documents.

Effective use of an early case assessment tool makes it possible to prepare an Early Case Assessment in the digital era. A good understanding of the documents allows the legal team to prepare a more complete litigation strategy. It also helps lower the overall cost of the case by reducing the amount of data that needs to be processed for review and correspondingly reducing the amount of legal hours required for review. The other added benefit is that the legal team will be able to create a more accurate budget for the case based on their insight into the data size and its nuances.

TAGS:  Clearwell, ECA, Early Case Assessment, eDiscovery, electronic discovery

<<  Back