7. To do “search” right, one has to know where relevant ESI may be found in the many branches of an organization
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14. Judge Maas writing for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York in Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3Tunes, LLC, 2009 WL 2568431 (Aug. 13, 2009) “ . . .[R]ather than sitting down with the Plaintiffs’ counsel to agre on search parameters and terms, MP3tunes’ counsel directed is client to conduct a search of MP3tunes’ emails . . . using the word ‘design’ as the only search term. Remarkably, when I questioned the wisdom of that decision . . . MP3tunes’ attorney suggested that he actually considered this one-word search to be ‘overly broad.’ After I observed that MP3tunes’ unilateral decision regarding its search reflected a failure to heed Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck’s recent ‘wake-up-call’ regarding the need for cooperation concerning e-discovery . . . Counsel apologized for not having also used the word ‘development’ as a search term.”
15.
16. inspect forage looking look for investigate explore SEARCH lookup seek examine hunt hunting Thesaurus c/o Herb Roitblatt
21. TREC Legal Track: Topics RequestNumber: 52 RequestText: Please produce any and all documents that discuss the use or introduction of high-phosphate fertilizers (HPF) for the specific purpose of boosting crop yield in commercial agriculture. Proposal: "high-phosphate fertilizer!" AND (boost! w/5 "crop yield") AND (commercial w/5 agricultur!) Rejoinder: (phosphat! OR hpf OR phosphorus OR fertiliz!) AND (yield! OR output OR produc! OR crop OR crops) FinalQuery: (("high-phosphat! fertiliz!" OR hpf) OR ((phosphat! OR phosphorus) w/15 (fertiliz! OR soil))) AND (boost! OR increas! OR rais! OR augment! OR affect! OR effect! OR multipl! OR doubl! OR tripl! OR high! OR greater) AND (yield! OR output OR produc! OR crop OR crops) B: 3078
22. Beyond Boolean: getting at the “dark matter” ( i.e., relevant documents not found by keyword searches alone)
24. “ Boolean” Searches May Miss A Large Percentage of Relevant Documents Source: TREC 2007 Legal Track 78% of relevant documents were only found by some other technique
25. Boolean v. TREC Systems: Results of Legal Track Years 1 and 2
26. Source: F.C. Zhao, D. W. Oard, and J.R. Baron, “Improving Search Effectiveness in the Legal E-Discovery Process Using Relevance Feedback” (forthcoming 2009) Improving Search Effectiveness Through Relevance Feedback and Multple Meet and Confers 1st Meet and Confer Second Meet and Confer
28. Strategic challenges in our collective futures . . . . Convincing lawyers and judges that automated searches are not just desirable but necessary in response to large e-discovery demands.
29. Challenges (cont.) Designing an overall review process which maximizes the potential to find responsive documents in a large data collection (no matter which search tool is used), and using sampling and other analytic techniques to test hypotheses early on.
30. Challenges (cont.) Having all parties and adjudicators understand that the use of automated methods does not guarantee all responsive documents will be identified in a large data collection.
31. Challenges (cont.) Being open to using new and evolving search and information retrieval methods and tools.
32. Overarching Smart E-Discovery Strategy ESPECIALLY FOR eDISCOVERY LITIGATOR-WARRIORS … EMRACING COLLABORATION WITH ADVERSARIES (TRANSPARENCY) See The Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation, www.thesedonaconference.org
33. The leading rule for the lawyer, as for the man, of every calling, is diligence. -- Abraham Lincoln
34. Ongoing Research & Reference TREC 2009 Legal Track / TREC 2010 Legal Track http://trec-legal.umiacs.umd.edu/ ICAIL 2009 Barcelona DESI III Workshop -- June 8, 2009 http://www.law.pitt.edu/DESI3_Workshop/ Workshop-in-Planning -- October/November 2010, San Francisco The Sedona Conference® Search & Retrieval Commentary (2007) & The Sedona Conference® Commentary on Achieving Quality in E-Discovery (2009) (both available at www.thesedonaconference.org )