Reportedly developed in under [...]]]> After a first attempt to create its own version of Apple’s trending voice assistant, “Siri,” Google is reportedly working on a new, more sophisticated model to release in early 2012.  The new voice assistant, dubbed “Majel,” will replace Android’s first attempt at a voice assistant app called “Iris” (or Siri in reverse).

Reportedly developed in under eight hours, Iris was a rival project aimed at Apple after Siri’s popularity rose with the release of the iPhone 4S.  Try as it might, Iris has been little competition to Siri whose conversational approach has allowed it to stand out among other similar apps, such as Iris, which take the voice command approach.

Google has been actively working on their new natural language persona, Majel, hoping to provide tougher competition to its Apple counterpart.  Majel is named after the “Star Trek” actress Majel Barrett-Roddenberry who, among other roles, played the voice of the Federation Computer in the latter part of the series. One of Majel’s improvements over current Android options is the evolution of Voice Actions (the use of specific commands such as “call…”) to a more subtle, natural language voice assistant.  Google has also recently purchased Phonetic Arts, allowing the app to acquire a more human-sounding voice than its predecessor, Iris.

While many critics belittle Google for its initial response to Siri by creating the lackluster Iris, Google is positive about Majel and the success it could bring the company.  Matias Duarte, Director of Android OS User Experience, explains how their approach to creating a voice assistant application stands out from the crowd:

“The metaphor I like to take is – if it’s Star Wars, you have these robot personalities like C-3PO who runs around and he tries to do stuff for you, messes up and makes jokes, he’s kind of a comic relief guy. Our approach is more like Star Trek, right, starship Enterprise; every piece of computing surface, everything is voice-aware. It’s not that there’s a personality, it doesn’t have a name, it’s just “Computer.” And you can talk to it and you can touch it, you can interact with it at the same time as you talk with it. It’s just another way to interface with the computer.”

The initial version of Majel will be limited to only Google search queries and is expected to be released no later than February of next year.

According the document’s initial summary report, these amendments were created to help the ITC identify investigations [...]]]> On November 18th the International Trade Commission’s (ITC) recent publication, Notice of Final Rulemaking will come into effect.  The publication includes amendments to the original document created specifically to gain more information from filed public issue complaints with the ITC.

According the document’s initial summary report, these amendments were created to help the ITC identify investigations which call for “further development of public interest issues in the record, and to identify and develop information regarding the public interest at each stage of the investigation.”

Some of the amendments found in the seven page document include the following points:

• A separate statement must be made by the complainant to address the public interest at the time of filing.
• The accused person must address the issue at the time of the response.
• Public comments must be provided prior to the origin of a complaint.

The notice of final rules for gathering information on public interest issues, originally published mid-October, is expected to bring a great number of complaint filings over the next week.

When: Wednesday, September 21st at 10:15 a.m.

Where: Virtual Corporate Counsel Forum — Online

Topic: Reducing E-Discovery Costs and Increasing Productivity: A Tale of Harmonizing Goals

With the growing amount of data in litigation, costs are on the rise and the fine balance between review quality and productivity is difficult to [...]]]> Who: LLM Director of Software Development Lindsay Stevens

When: Wednesday, September 21st at 10:15 a.m.

Where: Virtual Corporate Counsel Forum — Online

Topic: Reducing E-Discovery Costs and Increasing Productivity: A Tale of Harmonizing Goals

With the growing amount of data in litigation, costs are on the rise and the fine balance between review quality and productivity is difficult to maintain.  However, costs can be contained.  This session analyzes the ways in which corporations can save on costs while maintaining an accurate and speedy review.  The use of review tools such as clustering and native file review, combined with a workflow specialized for corporate needs, can help make the most out of your team’s time.

Lindsay Stevens provides a guiding hand in the day-to-day development and customization of LLM’s online products. She has tremendous experience supporting large scale litigations involving multiple parties. She utilizes this experience to provide assistance to clients when customizing the product and to guide the development of new features.

Virtual Corporate Counsel Forum is a complimentary online event that includes presentations, virtual booths, online networking, chatting, blogs, and more.

The SEC settled with 681 defendants in 2010 and is estimated to settle with 688 this year, showing a steady trend, [...]]]> NERA Economic Consulting published a report in June on trends in SEC settlements. They found some interesting shifts in the predominant settlement types that you may find surprising. Here are the highlights of the report:

The SEC settled with 681 defendants in 2010 and is estimated to settle with 688 this year, showing a steady trend, however…

Public company misstatements and insider trading settlements were once the most prevalent allegations, but have been decreasing since the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002.

Another shift has been between company and individual settlements. In the first half of the 2011 fiscal year, company settlements increased by 43 percent and individual settlements decreased by 12 percent. Despite this fact, four of the ten largest settlements in 1H11 were with individuals; one of which, against Brost & Sorenson, settled for $310 million. Not only was this one of the largest settlements of 1H11, it ranks as the ninth largest SEC settlement since SOX was ratified.

Yet on average, individual settlements that included a monetary payment decreased by over 4 percent while company settlements with payment increased by almost 2 percent. So although the majority of SEC settlements have shifted to companies, the example of Brost & Sorenson shows us that individual settlements are still making history.

The Model Code of Conduct, or MCoC, [...]]]> Recently, the EDRM released an “EDRM Model Code of Conduct,” which outlines “aspirational guidelines intended to serve as a basis for ethical decision making by all participants in the electronic discovery process.” The EDRM hopes to “provide predictability in business relationships” which will “lead to a more stable market.”

The Model Code of Conduct, or MCoC, is made up of 5 principles: Professionalism, Engagement, Conflicts of Interest, Sound Process and Security and Confidentiality.

Professionalism – “Service Providers should perform their work in a competent, accurate, timely and cost-effective manner, adhering to the highest standards of professionalism and ethical conduct.”

A provision under Principle 1 outlines communication guidelines for both service provider and client. This is particularly interesting, as it makes the point that both parties are responsible for adhering to the Code of Conduct, not just the service provider.

Engagement – “Service Providers should collaborate with Clients to establish and memorialize the terms of their relationship including any reasonably foreseeable parameters as early as possible upon the initiation of any new engagement.”

This principle covers guidelines for RFPs, project objective changes and use of sub-contractors and third parties. The Code states that these guidelines are in place to help both Service Provider and Client avoid “incurring undue fees and expenses or legal exposure.

Conflicts of Interest – “Service Providers should employ reasonable proactive measures to identify potential conflicts of interest, as defined and discussed below. In the event that an actual or potential conflict of interest is identified, Service Providers should disclose any such conflict and take immediate steps to resolve it in accordance with the Guidelines set forth below.”

The Conflicts of Interest Principle neatly outlines particular issues related to Clients, as well as the difference between business conflicts and conflicts of interest.

Sound Process – “Service Providers should define, implement and audit documented sound processes that are designed to preserve legal defensibility.”

Security and Confidentiality – “Service Providers should establish and implement procedures to secure and maintain confidentiality of all Client ESI, communications and other information.”

The Code specifically references “ESI, communications and other information” to ensure that “confidentiality shall broadly cover all case/matter related materials.”

Although most service providers and clients already adhere to these basic principles, it never hurts to have a clearly defined Model Code of Conduct to reference.

It’s no secret that cloud computing can save big money. A technology consulting firm, Booz, Allen, Hamilton, estimates that cloud computing can reduce costs by 65% over other systems and can [...]]]> A recent article from Steven Hunter, a partner at Quarles & Brady LLP, explains the rising popularity of cloud technology and the benefits it provides.

It’s no secret that cloud computing can save big money. A technology consulting firm, Booz, Allen, Hamilton, estimates that cloud computing can reduce costs by 65% over other systems and can provide a “payback on investments in three to four years.” With cost advantages almost guaranteed, some are still hesitant to switch to cloud computing because of the fear of “the costs and risks associated with conducting electronic discovery” in the cloud. Hunter claims that we needn’t worry, as the “risks associated with conducting e-discovery in the cloud…are remote, manageable and eclipsed by the savings companies should expect from cloud computing.”

Some are concerned with the “potential violation of international data privacy laws [due to] illegally disclosing data in the jurisdiction in which the cloud is associated.” Hunter suggests that in order to mitigate this risk, service agreements with cloud providers should state that:

-None of the company’s data may be stored outside the United States

-Provide a detailed mechanism for how the cloud will implement litigation holds

-Address how metadata will be created and stored in the cloud environment

Another common worry related to cloud computing is “the unintentional waiver of the attorney-client privilege by co-mingling data.” Hunter suggests “establishing security protocols to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of communications to the administrators of the cloud or any other third party.” Risk can also be decreased by using a private cloud rather than a public cloud.

New cloud computing technologies make electronic discovery in the cloud even easier. Facebook recently launched the “Download Your Information” button, allowing users to pull down all of their stored Facebook information in a single click. Hunter notes that this technology can be easily applied to corporate or other data in the cloud.

Hunter concludes, “At the end of the day, in-house counsel should be confident that (if managed properly) the benefit of moving a company’s data to the cloud outweighs the risks and costs associated with producing data from the cloud as part of a lawsuit.”

When: Tuesday, June 7th

Where: GC East Conference, New York City, NY

Topic: Reducing Discovery Costs

We are proud to announce Lindsay Stevens as a panelist at the 23rd Annual GC East Conference. Lindsay will speak during “Reducing Discovery Costs” which covers the “four key areas” in which corporations can reduce [...]]]> Who: LLM Director of Software Development Lindsay Stevens

When: Tuesday, June 7^th

Where: GC East Conference, New York City, NY

Topic: Reducing Discovery Costs

We are proud to announce Lindsay Stevens as a panelist at the 23^rd Annual GC East Conference. Lindsay will speak during “Reducing Discovery Costs” which covers the “four key areas” in which corporations can reduce discovery costs:

-Preservation and collection of evidence

-Minimizing data sets with automation

-Analyzing quality and productivity

-Optimizing document review

Lindsay Stevens provides a guiding hand in the day-to-day development and customization of LLM’s online products. She has tremendous experience supporting large scale litigations involving multiple parties. She utilizes this experience to provide assistance to clients when customizing the product and to guide the development of new features.

Prior to her arrival at LLM, Ms. Stevens worked with large corporations on major software integration initiatives. Her experience spans technologies in the areas of databases, client-server applications and web-based technologies.

Ms. Stevens graduated cum laude from Rice University with a BS degree in Electrical Engineering and a BA in French Studies.

We invite you to attend GC East, and specifically “Reducing Discovery Costs” on June 7th. For more information about GC East, click here.

In “10 E-Discovery Issues in 2011: Expert Insight to Manage Successfully,” Peck and Lender note [...]]]> Even though electronic discovery is nothing new, there are still many issues in this sector that remain unaddressed. In a recent issue of The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Honorable Judge Andrew Peck and attorney David Lender outline the top ten e-discovery issues.

In “10 E-Discovery Issues in 2011: Expert Insight to Manage Successfully,” Peck and Lender note cooperation, proportionality, collection, search, Rule 502, privilege, social networking, cloud computing, foreign discovery and sanctions as the top e-discovery issues and recommend best practices when dealing with each to help manage “the explosive cost of e-discovery.” From the article:

1. Cooperation – Peck and Lender note “…litigants who approach the Rule 26(f) conference unprepared…lose an opportunity to rein in the potential scope of electronic discovery.” Since cost is directly related to scope, it is crucial to limit e-discovery’s breadth from the beginning of a case. Peck and Lender suggest parties can …”discuss search terms, [limit] the number of custodians, date ranges, [and limit] the scope of privilege logging….” Litigants should also agree on production format, preservation scope and collection of ESI to “…reduce the burdens and costs of electronic discovery substantially.”

2. Proportionality – Overpreservation is a common issue, Peck and Lender state, “because it is cheaper and easier to retain and preserve than to discard it…” and because of “the lack of predictability” in preservation laws. During trial, however, “…no more than a few hundred documents…” are used. Peck and Lender suggest that litigation could be more proportional and thus cost efficient if discovery “…first [focuses] on the key players and from active, more easily obtained sources, to see if that discovery provides sufficient information to litigate the case.” If needed, then and only then would parties delve deeper into e-discovery.

3. When to Collect? – The time of collection is crucial to limiting the scope and thus cost of e-discovery. “Requiring litigants to collect documents as a part of preservation would dramatically increase the cost of litigation,” Lender and Peck note. They continue, “Preservation occurs early in the process… so requiring parties to collect…data before the issues are even crystallized makes little sense and will simply increase the costs.” To reduce costs, parties should consider waiting for collection until the case issues and key custodians are more clearly outlined.

4. Search – Lawyers use keyword searches to cull down large volumes of data. However, as Lender and Peck point out, in email, “misspellings are rampant, and the client may use terminology, acronyms or code words that no outsider could be expected to know.” Therefore, newer technologies like concept search and clustering should be utilized. Lender and Peck suggest using a combination of keyword searches, clustering and concept search to accurately sift through large volumes of data.

5. Rule 502 – The article outlines Rule 502, which establishes a “case-by-case approach as the uniform rule for governing the issue of the waiver of the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine in all federal courts.” However, as Lender and Peck point out, “The rule has yet to yield one of its main purposes, which was to reduce the costs of privilege reviews.” To help reduce the time of privilege review and reduce the costs, Lender and Peck suggest that “parties should request a Rule 502(d) clawback agreement in every case.” Additionally, they suggest that using clustering technologies may help to locate privileged documents. Clustering can help to identify groups of potentially privileged documents, which parties can, as Lender and Peck suggest, produce under a 502(d) agreement in place of a “page by page privilege review in advance of production.”

6. Privilege and Privilege Logs – Technologies such as keyword searches, clustering and concept search make locating privileged documents much more efficient. However, the more effective the technology, the higher number of privilege documents are discovered, which presents a new problem—a lengthy privilege log. The article notes Judge Facciola’s recent suggestion in which “some privileged ESI would not be logged at all, others logged in a general sense, and only certain ESI logged in full detail, as determined by cooperation among counsel with rigorous judicial supervision.” Although his suggestion would require more agreement between parties and more hands-on participation by the judges, it could be an effective solution.

7. Social Networking – As we’ve covered in previous postings, social networking can cause a multitude of privacy issues during e-discovery. Although Lender and Peck do not offer a specific suggestion for litigants in dealing with social networking data, it seems that companies should make clear to employees the rules behind using social networking for business purposes or for personal use of company computers to avoid potential issues if a case arises.

8. Cloud Computing – With Amazon’s recent cloud collapse and the rise in cloud usage, it seems a great deal of attention is being placed on the safety and reliability of cloud computing. “To reduce expenses or increase storage capacity some companies,” Lender and Peck note, “have begun to shift away from in-house e-mail and document servers and instead store such documents in the ‘cloud’ with third-party providers.” As we mentioned in this posting, safety issues with public clouds are common. Lender and Peck suggest that “…companies should ensure that cloud providers take steps to restrict access by the provider’s employees to the actual contents of the company’s email and ESI.” The article also makes note of the issues regarding clouds in foreign territories where “foreign governments [may] seek to serve subpoenas on the cloud provider to get access to a company’s data stored in the cloud.” In these cases, Lender and Peck recommend that companies “intervene and control the response to the subpoena, and [resist] the request to the extent legally permissible.”

9. Foreign Discovery – Due to cloud computing and the accessibility of electronically-based information in general, territories are blurred, making foreign discovery an important issue. Lender and Peck point out, “It may be virtually impossible for a company to comply with its US discovery obligations without violating another country’s data privacy statutes.” They note, “Counsel are advised to consult with experienced data privacy counsel in the foreign country to better walk the tightrope of conflicting US discovery obligations and foreign data privacy laws.”

10. Sanctions – Lender and Peck call 2010 “the year of sanctions” because of the large number of companies sanctioned for preservation failures in the previous year. They soften the blow, however, by mentioning that “…with very few exceptions, courts have not imposed severe sanctions…for honest mistakes by litigants.” They also note, “…much of the lack of uniformity in sanctions decisions is caused by the differing standards applied by different jurisdictions.” To avoid sanctions, Lender and Peck suggest “cooperation and transparency.” They state, “Working with your adversary and the court upfront can help raise and resolve issues early, and may lead to limiting the scope of preservation and production to more significant players, thereby minimizing the likelihood of mistakes occurring.”

As we near the halfway point for the year 2011, it will be interesting to see what roles these e-discovery issues continue to play in litigation. If litigants exercise Lender’s and Peck’s suggestions, we may begin to see uniformity in e-discovery practices.

The two hour session, led by legal and e-discovery experts, began with an explanation of the [...]]]> As data processing methodologies are constantly in flux, the recent Sedona Conference session “Database Principles: Addressing the Preservation and Production of Databases and Database Information in Civil Litigation” helped to outline some current viewpoints about database preservation, processing and production.

The two hour session, led by legal and e-discovery experts, began with an explanation of the importance of determining a standard for preserving database information. More and more, databases are becoming a resource rich with information due to their “large accumulations of information” and ability to “index, query, and report on the content…” stored within them. The rising importance of database information is met with a challenge—there is no standard for collecting and processing this information. “Databases,” according to the speakers, “are treated inconsistently in discovery.”  

Part of the reason database preservation and production has remained unstandardized stems from the difficulty in dealing with such a large set of data in a structured format. The speakers noted, “…not all content in a database may be relevant.” Furthermore, there is an issue of accessibility. According to the Conference speakers, structured information produced from databases can often not be meaningfully reviewed with conventional review platforms and procedures.

Though it is difficult to work with database information and set a singular standard for its preservation and production, databases are rising in importance and standards for various situations must be defined. The Conference speakers determined that relevance, production format and authenticity validation are the primary factors that should be addressed when working with database information.

Since databases house large volumes of documents, relevance of information becomes increasingly important when reviewing or producing documents. The Conference speakers noted that only rarely is an entire database relevant to the case. When requesting database information, the Conference speakers suggested that all parties involved have “…knowledge of the data and the system” in order to make a “meaningful” request. Beyond the concern of how much time it takes to review an over inclusive data set, the speakers noted, “Uneducated discovery requests can lead to expensive discovery disputes and the production of large amounts of useless data.”

After determining the scope of database information to request, the requesting party needs to negotiate the production format. The speakers noted, “The way in which a requesting party intends to use database information is an important factor in determining an appropriate format of production.” According to the Conference, different production formats include: reports based on queries, datasets derived from database, whole databases or supervised access to a database to perform searches.

Finally, the speakers focused on the validation of database information once it has been produced. They noted, “A responding party must use reasonable measures to validate ESI collected from database systems to ensure completeness and accuracy of the data acquisition.” Adherence to this principle may be somewhat easier to solicit as it is backed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1) which sets a standard for validating database information. It enforces that the information produced is “…to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry…complete and correct as of the time it is made…neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome….” To further validate data, the speakers suggested QC checking the information by using spot checks and record count sums.

Databases are crucial to review since they carry a wealth of information. However, this large amount of information can be unwieldy and intimidating. Discovering and producing database information is rising in popularity. As with other types of data, standards and expectations for handling database information will likely soon be set. The Sedona Conference has provided a great start for us all to work from.

Kundra outlines [...]]]> Earlier this year, the U.S. Chief Information Officer released the “Federal Cloud Computing Strategy,” which outlines the benefits of cloud computing. Defining cloud computing is a difficult task, since its definition can be as amorphous as its namesake. However, Vivek Kundra’s document helps outline exactly what comprises cloud computing, as well as its benefits.

Kundra outlines the benefits of cloud computing, stating, “Cloud Computing enables IT systems to be scalable and elastic. End users do not need to determine their exact computing resource requirements upfront.” This allows for what he calls, “on-demand” use of computing resources. Cloud computing can also improve IT in the public sector. Kundra notes that several government agencies have switched to cloud computing technologies, which “gives researchers access to IT services relatively inexpensively in minutes.” Systems not in the cloud take much more time and resources to procure information.

In the legal industry, the term “cloud computing” is used loosely, for many different applications and purposes, making it difficult to grasp exactly what each company provides. Kundra breaks cloud computing into four different categories. From “Federal Cloud Computing Strategy”:

-          Private Cloud. The cloud infrastructure is operated solely for an organization. It may be managed by the organization or a third party and may exist on premise or off premise.

-          Community Cloud: The cloud infrastructure is shared by several organizations and supports a specific community that has shared concerns…It may be managed by the organizations or a third party and may exist on premise or off premise.

-          Public Cloud. The cloud infrastructure is made available to the general public or a large industry group and is owned by an organization selling cloud services.

-          Hybrid Cloud. The cloud infrastructure is a composition of two or more clouds (private, community, or public) that remain unique entities but are bound together by standardized or proprietary technology that enables data and application portability.

Even after defining the types of cloud computing, it may not be clear as to which option is best. LLM’s Lit Manager^TM uses a private cloud, as our servers are hosted solely for LLM. Private clouds are much more secure than other cloud options, such as the public clouds offered by Amazon or Salesforce. Privately-owned clouds can be more easily managed and monitored than public clouds, allowing for more control and thus, security.

In addition to outlining types of clouds, Kundra also defines cloud service models in his paper. These service models include: software as a service, platform as a service and infrastructure as a service. Lit Manager^TM provides cloud software as a service (SaaS). Software as a service, Kundra defines, is a cloud in which “the applications are accessible from various client devices through a thin client interface such as a web browser….” The software as a service platform is secure and easy to use because, as Kundra notes, “The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure.” Therefore, the client does not have to micromanage the cloud and can simply use it to access their information without worry.

In a world where the term “Cloud Computing” is applied to almost anything with an internet connection, Kundra’s “Federal Cloud Computing Strategy” helps outline the definition, uses and benefits of cloud computing. To make sense out of the enigma that cloud computing has become, perhaps companies should begin to define cloud computing by type, rather than by using a blanket term.

The on-hold suit [...]]]> The earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan have clearly impacted the lives of countless individuals worldwide. And now, its shockwaves have rippled over to the legal system as well. Due to communication and travel issues in Japan, a large litigation (comprised of about 200 lawsuits) against Toyota Motor Corporation is largely on hold.

The on-hold suit is brought against Toyota due to injuries and fatalities from defects in Toyota’s vehicles. Important evidence, including highly sensitive source code from the vehicles and email chains, isn’t able to be obtained at this time. The source code can be accessed from a computer in a secured vault. However, Mark Robinson, the plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel, stated, “Because there are problems with communications in Japan right now, we’ve not agreed to it.”

Other delays in the case are due to travel issues. According to the article, U.S. District Judge James Selna ordered for a Toyota employee to be deposed in relation to Toyota’s design documentation process. Selna understands the difficult situation in Japan right now and “acknowledged that a deposition might not be possible for several months.”

This article reminds us that although the earthquake is over, its aftershocks will last for many months to come. The Japanese are still in dire need of help. Donations made to the Red Cross or other charities will help Japan get back on its feet more quickly.