2

Discussion Overview

Why Discuss Alternative Document Review Solutions?

What is Technology-Assisted Review?

Adopting Technology-Assisted Review (TAR)

Parting Thoughts

3

Why TAR?

4

As ediscovery budgets shrink and data volumes continue to increase, TAR can help you save time and reduce costs by solving these key problems:

Sorting and grouping documents

more efficiently

Finding the right documents as

fast as possible

Validating the reviewer’s work before production

Responsive

Non-responsive

Train

Predict Evaluate

Goal: Leverage Technology, not Bodies

5

Train

Predict

6

» Humans develop TAR methodology

» Technology and humans identify document subset for training

» Human subject matter experts review document subsets

The TAR Lifecycle by Kroll Ontrack

7

» Technology learns from human input

» Technology elevates documents most likely to be responsive

» Technology predicts categorization of non-reviewed documents

The TAR Lifecycle by Kroll Ontrack

8

» Humans review predictions provided by technology

» Humans correct or validate machine predictions

» Humans assess technology output and decide whether to continue training or proceed with results

The TAR Lifecycle by Kroll Ontrack

Technology Assisted Review: What It Will Not Do

Will not replace or mimic the nuanced expert judgment of experienced attorneys with advanced knowledge of the case

Will not eliminate the need to perform validation and QC steps to ensure accuracy

9

Will not provide a magic button that will totally automate document review as we know it today

Technology Assisted Review: What It Can Do

Reduce:

» Time required for document review and administration

» Number of documents to review; if you choose an automated categorization or prioritization function

» Reliance on contract reviewers or less experienced attorneys

Leverage expertise of experienced attorneys

Increase accuracy and consistency of category decisions (vs. unaided human review)

Identify the most important documents more quickly

10

TAR Case Law Developments

11

Da Silva Moore (Feb. 2012)

» First federal court endorsement of TAR

Kleen Products (Mar. 2012)

» Significant TAR expert witness testimony

Global Aerospace (Apr. 2012)

» First state court endorsement of TAR

In re Actos (July 2012)

» Plaintiff and defendant agree to use TAR

Recent Developments

» EOHRB (May 2013) (lifting previous order requiring use of TAR)

» In re Biomet (Apr. 2013) (endorsing pre-TAR key word cull in very large case)

» Gordon v. Kaleida Health (May 2013) (raising seed set disclosure issues)

Parting Thoughts

Automated review technology helps lawyers focus on resolution – not discovery – through available metrics

» Complements human review, but will not replace the need for skillful human analysis and advocacy

At this point, it’s no longer a question of “how can you use TAR,” but instead “how can you not use it”

» Benefits are spreading and well-known throughout the industry

» No one is “twisting your arm” or making you use TAR; you can leverage smaller components and see results for yourself

Not all Technology Assisted Review solutions are created equal

» Thoroughly vet the technology before adopting

12