Joint Meeting eDiscovery Joint Session with the Association of Records Managers and Administrators, NYC Chapter (ARMA), Paralegals and Litigation Support Working Group (PALS) and Women in eDiscovery (WIE) Moderator: Joe Bartolo, J.D.
Joint Meeting Panelist: Alan Winchester, Esq.
Joint Meeting Panelist: Rudy Moliere
Joint Meeting Panelist: Hon. Ronald J. Hedges (retired)
Joint Meeting Panelist: Salvatore Mancuso
Topic 1: Predictive Coding (PC) as an emerging trend ("buzzword") - what's all the buzz about? What is PC exactly, and how does it fit into TAR (Technology Assisted Review) a/k/a CAR (Computer Assisted Review) - or does it?
Topic 2: What are the benefits of using processes such as TAR/CAR or PC versus a traditional linear review?
Topic 3: What are some of the differences in using TAR/CAR for various purposes: (a) records management; (b) investigations and early case assessment; and (c) Litigation (civil or criminal). Is there is downstream use for PC for Information Governance Purposes? (Predictive Filing?)
Topic 4: Have paralegals been placed on remediation projects of large data sets, and can they see this as a tool? If paralegals are in the position where they will be asked to interact with this technology, are TAR/CAR and PC white horses for potential challenges?
Topic 5: What is involved in the process of generating a random “Sample”? What are some best practices regarding “Sampling” of the “Active” and “Null” sets to validate the results of TAR and “Clustering”?
eDISCOVERY TEAM®
Topic 6: CAR/TAR (and PC) have not been accepted in any litigation other than at a threshold level. Should there be "transparency? What does that mean in actual litigation practice?
Topic 7: How should attorneys defend the process of using TAR/CAR (and/or PC), if challenged?
Concluding Remarks Questions & Answers
Thank You for Attending Special thanks to NYCPA; ARMA; Women in eDiscovery – New York Chapter; PALS; Event Sponsors: Polygon and Subject Matter Expert Panelists; All those who participated in planning; NBC Studios.