A preference for native file formats in
eDiscovery
– the electronic exchange of information in the discovery process in
litigation – is now nearly the norm, despite some resistance in years
past. When electronically stored information (ESI) is preserved
throughout the discovery process in its native format, all potentially
relevant information – including searchable text, annotations, and
metadata – is preserved as well, and is readily available to sharp legal
eyes and to the growing array of eDiscovery analysis tools.
Of those tools, one of the most talked-about today is
predictive coding,
the application of artificial intelligence and workflow processes to
keyword search, filter, and sample eDiscovery content to identify what’s
most relevant to the case, in order to make the process quicker and
less labor-intensive. Critics say predictive coding amounts to replacing
a lawyer’s experienced eyes and judgment with inferior programming,
while proponents argue that it’s not only faster (hence cheaper), but
also less likely to miss something small and important, when applied
smartly. Although the jury is still out and challenges remain, recent
word from federal and state benches points to
growing acceptance of predictive coding, especially in cases involving thousands or millions of pages of discovery.
The more complete and searchable a document file is, the more useful
it becomes to predictive coding, and thus more valuable to the case. A
native format document makes any searchable text, indexing, annotations,
metadata and other original information available to the predictive
coding engine’s expert electronic eye.
But even when predictive coding is used, litigators need to be able
to view and print discovery documents, and often to annotate and redact
them as well. And that’s when native formats become a problem. When
dozens of available native file formats require dozens of applications
to display them – Microsoft Word for Word docs, Adobe Reader for PDFs,
AutoCAD for blueprints, a photo app for pictures, and on and on – legal
teams must stock a complex and often expensive array of programs for
viewing. And litigators must not only have all those applications on
hand, but also be trained in using them – not only for viewing, but also
for annotating and redacting – and must waste costly time switching
among programs.
OrcaTec,
an Atlanta-based eDiscovery software provider, addresses the native
file format dilemma in its Document Decisioning Suite in part by
embedding Accusoft’s
Prizm Content Connect
viewer. Because the viewer displays and prints more than 300 file
types, OrcaTec’s users can perform all of their document review within
the same viewer, and use one familiar set of tools for annotation and
redaction. Read more about OrcaTec's approach to enhancing its
document viewer and browser-based redaction to make native files available to litigators.
Although eDiscovery is here to stay and its predictive coding
component seems poised to follow, questions remain about the
defensibility of predictive-coding-based discovery. The American Bar
Association
seems to take an optimistic, wait-and-see view
of the technology while cautioning practitioners to perform tests to
ensure that the results of predictive coding are complete, accurate, and
appropriate in scope. Ultimately such testing – amplified by the
success or failure of predictive coding results in court in coming years
– will not only determine the fate of the technology, but will also
help law firms learn how to compare among eDiscovery tools and select
the best ones for their practices.
You may also be interested in reading "
5 Keys to Selecting an eDiscovery Viewer." This
whitepaper discusses the importance of viewing in an eDiscovery
solution and focuses on 5 keys for selecting the viewer that meets your
eDiscovery requirements.
Source: http://blog.accusoft.com/posts/2013/april/going-native-with-ediscovery.html
