Discover Top Posts Tagged with #rule 26

A Federal Discovery Rule Quiz.

Treating Physicians & Non-Retained Expert Witnesses: What Do Parties Have to Disclose Before Trial? by Max Kennerly, Esq., Litigation and Trial, The Law Blog of Plaintiff’s Attorney Max Kennerly

http://bit.ly/2mvxvg1

Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, who is a “non-retained expert witness” and when does that witness need to provide a thorough report rather than a summary…

View On WordPress

#Discovery #Expert Witness Discovery #Litigation #Litigation and Trial #Rule 26 #The Law Blog of Plaintiff’s Attorney Max Kennerly

E-Discovery and the Law of Diminishing Returns.

Citing “Diminishing Returns,” Court Declines To Compel Additional Discovery, Armstrong Pump, Inc. v. Hartman, No. 10-CV-446S, 2016 WL 7208753 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2016), Electric Discovery Law, K&L Gates

http://bit.ly/2jbEnfn

When it comes to e-discovery, how much is too much? When do you or opposing counsel reach the point where the costs outweigh the value? The 2015 amendment to the Federal Rules…

View On WordPress

#2015 Amendment to Federal Rules of Civil Proceudre #E-Discovery #K&L Gates #Rule 26

Opposing Counsel objected to every discovery request on the grounds that it was overly burdensome because it was not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Now I get to write him a sassy letter explain A) that’s not the standard for the scope of discovery B) if it’s overly burdensome he is supposed to explain why and how the burden outweighs the likely benefit and C) he has to specific if he’s withholding anything based on his objection.

This should be fun. Updates to the Rules are fun.

#lawblr #real lawblr #rants of an angry baby lawyer #rule 26 #rule 34 #baby lawyer

Rule #36: if you feel like your being played, you probably are. You did what you had to do. I did what I had to do. You broke rule number one. Once you break rule number one. My feelings, attitude, and view towards you changed. Rule number one: Never screw over your partner. That’s why I have rule #11: When the job is done. Walk away. It’s also why we have rule #16: If someone thinks they have the upperhand. Break it. You tried to play me twice. So thats what I did. I called you out on your shit, and told you to have a nice day. But unfortunately when you told me you broke rule #1. Rule #26 came into effect. Never trust anyone who has broken rule #1. You don’t even know what you lost girl. And you never will.

#rule 36 #rule 11 #rule 16 #rule 26

Conversion of Salary in Foreign Currency

Conversion of Salary in Foreign Currency or Foreign Exchange into Indian Rupees under Income Tax

Conversion of Salary in Foreign Currency into INR has to be made for the purpose of calculation of TDS / Tax liability thereon under I.Tax Act.

In all such situations where where employer pays or employee receives salary in foreign currency which is subject to applicability of Income Tax Act,…

View On WordPress

#Conversion of Foreign Currency salary #Conversion of Foreign Exchange Salary #Income Tax Rules #Rule 26 #TDS on Salary

Jason Atchley : Statistics? Rule 26? TAR???

jason atchley

Vendor Voice: Statistics, Rule 26(g) and Getting Stuck in TAR

The TAR process must be implemented with a consistent eye toward certification requirements.

Karl Schieneman & Thomas Gricks III, Law Technology News

February 14, 2014 |0 Comments

Anyone who has ever tried to use a technology-assisted review or predictive coding tool usually starts by talking to a vendor—or a handful of vendors—who immediately suggest these tools are exceedingly simple to use and speed up the time and lower the costs of litigation. While no doubt true, attorneys in federal court are held to a standard of “reasonable inquiry” as dictated by Rule 26(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If attorneys do not keep a mindful eye on the process, the easy button of TAR can raise unintended Rule 26(g) challenges by the opposing party or unilaterally by the Judge in the case.

The Implications of Rule 26(g) on the Use of Technology-Assisted Review was recently published in the Federal Courts Law Review. The article analyzes five phases of the TAR process that, if not fully considered and properly executed can engender Rule 26(g) arguments. These stages are collection, disclosure, training, stabilization, and validation. For example, during the collection phase, attorneys seldom consider the impact of the richness of the collection upon the reasonableness of the inquiry under Rules 26(g). Since the advent of the recent federal rules and the warnings of Zubulake V (Zubulake v. UBS Warburg 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), attorneys have been fearful of sanctions for not preserving and collecting all relevant electronically stored information. The knee jerk reaction has been to preserve and collect broadly, and then throw more data into a review tool than is even remotely tied to a case. This is compounded by the fact that requesting parties, recognizing the relative ease of searching ESI (as compared with hard copy documents) tend to make overly broad document production requests.

As a practical matter, this can make it more difficult to implement a technology-assisted review, which depends on the development of a language model to distinguish between relevant and non-relevant documents. This is generally accomplished by the algorithmic analysis of language patterns in documents which are coded responsive versus documents which are coded not responsive. If relatively few of the documents in a collection are responsive, it becomes a challenge finding enough documents to develop the model. If you use a seeding approach of finding and picking exemplar documents, much like we use key words, you run the risk of not finding the documents that, while perhaps relevant and even important to the case, are not sufficiently like the seed documents to be uncovered by the tool.

If you use a machine assisted or random approach, it may be necessary to code a significant number of documents to develop the model. For example, if only 1 percent of the collection is relevant, a completely random selection of documents may require a review of 20,000 to 50,000 documents. While this will typically be a very small fraction of the entire collection, it can be difficult for senior attorneys to devote the necessary time to the review.

This situation also implicates the Rule 26(g) certification. TAR productions are often validated to a confidence level of 95 precent and a confidence interval of ±2 percent by reviewing just under 2,400 documents. For a reasonable collection in which 10 percent of the documents may be relevant, the actual confidence interval would be closer to ±1.2 percent, or just 12 percent of the anticipated value.

However, in a poor collection in which only one percent of the documents are expected to be relevant, the confidence interval, while only ±0.4 percent, would actually equate to 40 percent of the estimated value. The article discusses the implications of this situation on the Rule 26(g) certification, because the producing party is uniquely situated to manage the results of the TAR process.

The article also addresses other situations, such as the challenges implicit in effecting cooperation and transparency when lawyers are typically accustomed to sharing as little information as necessary with opposing counsel. In cases such as In Re Actos and Global Aerospace v. Landow Aviation, L.P. dba Dulles Jet Center, et al, the parties agreed to share documents coded as non-responsive which were fed into the TAR tool, in order to gain an agreement from opposing counsel and to reduce the risks of a challenge to the training process.

The concept behind sharing this information is similar to the idea behind sharing key words with opposing counsel. Any agreement reduces the risk of being challenged for not having undertaking a “reasonable inquiry.” Cases spawned by 75 years of manual review do not require this level of transparency and cooperation, and courts have been slow to move in that direction. See In Re Biomet. Nevertheless, deficiencies in training the TAR tool, can only be discovered by an adversary who has not been the beneficiary of transparency and cooperation after the time and expense of training have been incurred by the defendants. Any deficiencies in the production may be viewed negatively under Rule 26(g) if the court sees transparency as a way to reduce the cost of litigation and improve the value of discovery. This is especially true if the producing party opposed transparency during the course of the litigation. The article explains how transparency can serve as an insurance policy against a Rule 26(g) challenge.

The key takeaway: Rule 26(g) implicates every aspect of the TAR process, and the process must be implemented with a consistent eye toward certification requirements. Equally as important is the notion that linear review (which is typically conducted on electronic data) may well become subject to the same types of considerations as attorneys attempt to impose validation requirements on modern document productions. As Rule 26(g) moves to the forefront, lawyers who do not fully appreciate the background sampling and statistics risk finding themselves stuck in “tar” of the reasonable inquiry standards of Rule 26(g)

Attorney Karl Schieneman is president of Review Less ([email protected]); Thomas Gricks III is head of predictive coding and a shareholder at Schnader Harrison Segal and Lewis ([email protected]). Both are based in Pittsburgh, Pa., and participated in the Global Aerospace case.

Companies, agencies mentioned: TAR | Global Aerospace | Federal Rules | Use of Technology-Assisted | L.P. dba Dulles Jet Center

Law firms mentioned: Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis

Filed Under: Civil Procedure , Discovery

Read more: http://www.lawtechnologynews.com/id=1202642979755/Vendor-Voice%3A-Statistics%2C-Rule-26%28g%29-and-Getting-Stuck-in-TAR#ixzz2tb8nlGSB

Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley

Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley Jason Atchley

Posted by Jason Atchley at 10:38 AM

#jason atchley #legal tech #ltny #TAR #rule 26 #technology assisted review #ediscovery #discovery