Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
In New Mexico State Investment Council v. Bland, a New Mexico State Judge found that Day Pitney successfully utilized TAR to: identify potentially relevant information with greater accuracy than standard linear review. Day Pitney LLP used a combination of strategies including Daegis TAR and managed document review services to achieve victory and receive a favorable order from the judge.
Citation preview
Judicial Acceptance of TAR:Day Pitney Use of Daegis TAR more Accurate and Efficient than Linear Review
Moderator: Anita Engles, Vice President Products and Marketing, Daegis
Presenters
2
Doug StewartVP of Sales Support, Daegis
Cliff Nichols E-Discovery Counsel, Day Pitney LLP
NMSIC v. Bland, D-101-CV-2011-01534
� State agency chaired by Governor Susana Martinez� Trustee for sovereign wealth funds � Invests the Land Grant Permanent Fund and Severance Tax
Permanent Fund� Funds are established under the New Mexico Constitution
for the benefit of the citizens of New Mexico� Funds have market value in excess of $18 billion� NMSIC invests a portion of the assets in private market
investments
Client Client
NMSIC v. Bland, D-101-CV-2011-01534
Pay-to-Play Breach of Fiduciary Duties
Breach of Contract
Unjust Enrichment
Claims
NMSIC v. Bland, D-101-CV-2011-01534
Former State Investment Officer
Former Private Equity Advisor
Politically-connected Individuals
Placement Agents Fund Mangers
DefendantsDefendants
Investigation and Settlement
• Investigate Facts• Seek Settlements w/Small Players• Seek Recovery from Big Targets
Strategy
• Multiple Sources & Formats• Hundreds of Relevant Parties• Informal/Formal Discovery
Investigation
• Massive Data• Constrained Time• Limited Budget
Challenges
Daegis / Day Pitney Solution
• Volume
• Budget
• Deadline
Drivers Approach Participants
• People—SME’s
• Process—MDR
• Technology—TAR
• Day Pitney
• Daegis
Daegis / Day Pitney Process
Identified Documents
Tested & Refined Search Terms
Trained Reviewers
Conducted TAR Review
Validated Results—Iteratively
QC’ed Relevant Documents
8
NMSIC v. Bland Case Metrics
� Starting Population: 3.5 Million Docs
� Starting Search Hits: 400,000 Docs
� Final Search Hits: 100,000 Docs
� Total Reviewed: 116,000 Docs
� Review Team: 12 Reviewers
� Review Time: 4 weeks
� Relevancy Rate: 00.95%
� Rel. Rate of Reviewed: 17.84%
9
Average Precision of Initial Keywords: 44%Average Precision of Final Keywords: 84%
The Judge’s Decision
Findings of Fact
TAR “enabled the reviewers on the document analysis teams to work more efficiently…and identify potentially relevant information with greater accuracy than standard linear review.”
10
The Judge’s Decision
11
Conclusions of Law � The Settlements are fair, adequate and
reasonable.
� NMSIC “conducted sufficient discovery and investigation to fairly evaluate the merits…, the risks of litigation and the range of possible recovery.”
� “The extensive investigation and discovery conducted by Day Pitney has allowed NMSIC to fairly evaluate the merits of the Settling Defendants' positions during settlement negotiations, without the need for prolonged and extensive discovery.”
The Hearing and Outcome
What does the decision mean?
12
TAR as a Settlement Tool
No Presumption Against Predictive Coding
Be Prepared for Savvy Opposition
The Hearing and Outcome
13
E-Discovery Counsel as Witness
Subsequent Settlements
TAR/Predictive Coding as a Solution
Q&A
14
Doug StewartVP of Sales Support, Daegis
Cliff Nichols E-Discovery Counsel, Day Pitney LLP
