Ethical Edd: A Guide To Making Ethically Sound Decisions in Handling EDD Processing

ETHICAL EDD
A Guide To Making Ethically Sound Decisions In Handling EDD Processing
#%&#(SE
To provide a framework that will empower legal advisors to make ethically sound decisions related to the handling and processing of ESI Ethical focus is on the following responsi!ilities " Competence " Diligence " #romptness " Accuracy " Defensi!ility " E$peditiousness " Efficient %se of &esources Scope 'e will also address topics that should !e considered when making decisions at various stages of EDD
ETHICAL EDD Copyright 2010 ADS For internal use on ACC website only !ay not be "istribute"
A)E*DA
'ho is defining the landscape+ A #aradigm Shift , Em!racing the (penness -urisdictional Differences , A .uick e$ample ED&/ , 'e0ll look at the stages 1 point out choices that represent potential ethical danger 2ones
Identification 3 Lit Hold 1 IT #olicies , Accurate4 Defensi!le4 #rompt+ #roduction &e.uests , Crafting 1 &esponding 3 %niverse of Data , How defensi!le is your data manifest+ #re3#rocessing , Is your culling methodology accurate 1 defensi!le+
5ulk Tagging , Com!ining Tools with Competence 1 Diligence De3duping , &efresher6 Is )lo!al 7glo!al8+6 Is re3duping defensi!le+ Clustering 1 Searching , Competence 1 Accuracy
#&E9ACE I am a Consultant6 not a litigator E3Discovery in the courtroom represents 7:a rapidly evolving situation 8 I am not here to lay down 5right Line rules I0m here to talk a!out general principles
'H( IS SHA#I*) THE LA*DSCA#E+

Consider the e$perience of those shaping the landscape The litigator0s Electronic Discovery landscape is largely !eing shaped !y /agistrate 1 District Court -udges They have no practical litigation e$perience with E3Discovery yet they are the ones making the rules and sanctioning firms ESI didn0t e$ist when they were attorneys They are creating rules with very draconian penalties for failure to follow them All of this comes with huge costs E$ample; A /agistrate -udge presiding over the discovery hearings on a construction case involving over <= parties 1 non3parties ruled that >? duplicate copies of the hard drives containing one party0s production re.uest were to !e produced and delivered to the other >? parties within @< hours 'hen counsel pointed out the practical issues regarding the time it would take to do this4 the -udge effectively said 7I don0t careA Do itA8
'HAT CA* B(% D(+

As a practical approach4 you need to present to the Cudge the EDD strategy and methodology utili2ed for your case in a way that Custifies the soundness of your decisions4 o!viates your forthrightness4 demonstrates your understanding of the technology involved and your adherence to !est practices It could !e argued that the legal community involved in litigating ESI cases has an o!ligated duty to guide the educational process of the Cudges charged with making the rules
Ethi cal (!li gati on vs #rof essi ona l &es pon si!il ity+
A #A&ADI)/ SHI9T
Litigators are not trained to share information They are trained to give the a!solute minimum they possi!ly can In EDD4 the courts are pushing a different paradigm regarding sharing Dand not resorting to the -udge to make a rulingE Sedona talks a!out !eing as open as you can possi!ly !e Doing the opposite can get to !e very e$pensive In any case4 once the -udge finds out you0ve !een hiding4 they are going to force you to open up
E m !r ac in g th e op en ne ss :
-%&ISDICTI(*AL DI99E&E*CES
-urisdictional differences play a large part The rapid pace of rulings and lack of accepted guidelines has resulted in e$treme differences in the rules among Curisdictions 7 decisions in adCacent Curisdictions are diametrically opposed to one another 8 E$ample; In the case of inadvertently produced privilege documents6 does the producing party have a duty to report+ DC and /D are neigh!ors !ut the rules in each Curisdiction are e$actly opposite of one another (ne says that attorneys have a 7professional responsi!ility 1 duty to report8 inadvertently produced privilege documents6 the other says it is not re.uired
C o m p et e nt + Di li g e nt +
A&E B(% (* THE SA/E #A)E AS (%TSIDE C(%*SEL+
How well do you understand the process4 methodology and technological tools at your disposal+ Bou have the professional responsi!ility to not only understand the capa!ilities6 !ut also to have the re.uisite e$pertise and wherewithal to efficiently4 economically4 accurately and defensi!ly leverage the technology and resources availa!le to you Is your outside counsel also following this mindset+ 'here do differences in methodology and e$pertise e$ist !etween your team and outside counsel+ How would you answer this .uestion if posed in Court+
Eff ici en t+ Dil ig en t+ Co m pe te nt +
EACH STA)E &E#&ESE*TS &ISF

Data 1 Custodia n /apping+ Su!Cective or Determinis tic+ #roducti on 9ormat+ How Inclusiv e+ Duplica tes Include d+
Chain of Custody +
Domain 9iltering +
Do 'e Have It All+
Should 'e Self Collect+ Do 'e Cull Internally+
5ulk Tagging +
*ear Dupes+ (missions +
The goal of EDRM is to develop guidelines and standards for e-discovery consumers and providers.
IDE*TI9ICATI(*3 A Hypothetical E$ample:
Self3Collection , Bour thoughts+ %nder what circumstances should you allow custodians or internal staff to identify or self collect relevant data+
-udge Scheindlin recently categori2ed the practice of self3collection as an act of gross negligence (ther Cudges have made similar assessments
Dili gen t+ Def ens i!le + Acc ura te+ Co mp ete nt+
Hu#or $rea%& In the interest o' openness an" sharing( wel)o#e to #y worl"*
Used by permission of Tom Fishburne. www.tomfishburne.com
IDE*TI9ICATI(* 3 %*IGE&SE (9 DATA
D ef en si !l e+ Ac cu ra te + Ef fic ie nt +
LITI)ATI(* H(LD;
Identification 1 #reservation
Su!Cective vs Deterministic practices

Su!Cective 3 %sers isolate and H or retain documents 7related to I8 Is the identification of relevant documents !eing left up to each custodian+ How is the accuracy of their interpretation and actual e$ecution !eing monitored+ 'ithout knowledge of the case4 how can a user decide what is relevant+ Deterministic 3 (!Cective process that uses very specific rules to determine whether a document meets a particular criteria Identify 1 preserve all email with ToH9romHCCH5CC containing specified domains and email addresses Document /anagement Systems 3 Identify documents that meet specified content or custodial criteria
D ef en si !l e+ Ac cu ra te + Ef fic ie nt +
LITI)ATI(* H(LD;
Data /apping 1 Tape 5ackups
Data /aps 3 Identifying Data Sources in Advance

#repare data maps !ased on custodians most likely to have data of interest in any litigation #repare a su!Cect matter map that consists of specific data most likely to !e of interest in litigation Identify present and historical data sources including legacy data Archive data 3 identify 1 catalogue your physical sourcesJ of data DJincluding any dark storerooms full of unmarked tapesE
Tapes , JJJA Special *oteJJJ

E$pect the courts to !e less likely to accept financial !urden or inaccessi!ility as a reasona!le argument against collecting from tape !ackups Tools now e$ist that can cheaply catalogue and search tapes Several /agistrate -udges have !een given live demonstrations of tools that can inde$ 1 search tapes .uickly 1 cheaply E$pect them to !e less likely to accept inaccessi!le as a reasona!le argument IfKthere is no legal reason to retainKthem6 get rid of themA
D ef e ns i! le + #r o m pt +
LITI)ATI(* H(LD; The #ower of #olicy
Do you have e$isting policies that define how custodians are to manage their data and data3containing devices+ Email+
Are users responsi!le for managing the si2e of their email store files+ Are they allowed to use offline storage files+ Lotus *otes; Do users detach large attachments from email in order to manage the si2e of their mail!o$+ How is this resolvedHidentified when the data is collected+ Are users allowed to access non3work email accounts Dgmail4 Bahoo4 etc E from work computers+ Distri!ution Lists 3 Custodians may receive email that is sent to distri!ution lists DDLsE of which they are a mem!er Searches for Cust the custodian0s email address may result in these messages !eing e$cluded from the collection
Is this mem!ership tracked+ Does it include the dates they were addedHremoved from the DL+
Def ens i!le + #ro mp t+ Dili gen t+ Co mp ete nt+
LITI)ATI(* H(LD; The #ower of #olicy
5lack5erry 1 (ther #DA devices

'hat is the policy regarding non3email communications and data+ S/S DTe$tE /essages //S D/ultimedia /essaging ServicesE /essages 3 &I/ only stores the te$t of these messages Are the images relevant+ #I* /essages D#ersonal Identification *um!erE 3 Is your 55 server configured to store and retain #I* messages+ Are #I*s of users stored along with the dates of any device or configuration changes that would result in a new #I*+ I/ DInstant /essagingE 3 Is your 55 server configured to store and retain I/ data+ *otes4 address !ooks4 mo!ile documents4 photos 3 Is your system configured to sync and retain this data+ If not synchroni2ed4 what differences e$ist !etween the device and the server versions of the address !ooks+ Did you compare aliases to see if custodians utili2ed other forms of communication under different names+
Def ens i!le + #ro mp t+ Dili gen t+ Co mp ete nt+
#&(D%CTI(* &EL%ESTS
&esponding to #roduction &e.uests
Courts e$pect attorneys to !e as open and a generous with information as they can !e EDD is a conundrum for many litigators !ecause it is M?= degrees from what a Cudge would e$pect you to do with paper They 'A*T you to volunteer information and they can get very angry with you if you don0t
Crafting #roduction &e.uests

-udges want you *(T to hide anything NThey want you to construe ESI re.uests as !roadly as possi!le *arrow re.uests piss them off In paper discovery4 the narrow re.uest is normal4 !ut in Electronic Discovery4 -udges don0t want to see that NJ J Senior Counsel4 *ew Bork City Law Department
A cc ur at e+ C o m p et e nt +
#&(D%CTI(* &EL%ESTS , I/#(&TA*TA
5e careful to !e open and 7avoid !eing under inclusive in what you are producing Don0t Ogo lawyer0 on deciding how inclusive to !e 8 @ DThis is even harder E Bou have to really know what you have and what you0ve given over
E$ample; In a recent case with one of my clients4 opposing counsel opposed a motion for summary Cudgment regarding signed releases The argument was that !ecause they didn0t have any claims at the time of the release4 they left the space !lank They didnPt fill it out and claimed that they couldn0t have detailed any claims !ecause 2ero claims e$isted at the time the release was signed In the privilege log however4 there were nearly >== docs pertaining to the large list of claims and damage calculations that predated the date they signed the release
De fen si! le+ Co mp ete nt+ Ac cur ate + Dili
G(L%/E (9 DATA , Bou should know this:
How much data do you have+

There is a !ig difference !etween the amount of data collected and the amount of data you will have after culling Q= )! of email will result in a lot more reviewa!le data than a >== )! forensic image taken from a hard drive 'hy+ 9orensic images include system files4 programs4 unused drive space and deleted files A >== )! image may e.uate to only @= )! of &eviewa!le ESI to !e processed once it has !een analy2ed Collected Email data is4 in essence4 pre3culled ESI Q= )! R Q= )! M )iga!yte D)!E of &eviewa!le ESI Appro$imately S=3M==F pages A!out @Q3>= !ankers !o$es M Tera!yte DT!E R M=@< )! of &eviewa!le ESI Appro$imately S=3M== /illion pages Appro$imately @Q4===3 >=4=== !ankers !o$es
Effi cie nt res our ce usa ge+ #ro mp t+ Dili gen t+ Co mp ete nt+
C%LLI*) /ETH(DS
De3mystifying 7De3*IST3ing8
The *S&L List Dalso called the *IST listE list can !e used to eliminate known system files !ased on their digital signature The list is a collection of digital signatures of known4 tracea!le software applications It is updated regularly
Culling Tools , In house or use a vendor+

There are several culling tools availa!le for 7Do It Bourself8 culling Consider the following when deciding if in house culling is right for you; 'ho is going to !e using the program+ IT or dedicated staff+ 'ho is managing the in house collections+ Are they .ualified to handle their own evidence+ Chain of custody , Is client capa!le of documenting this+ How fre.uently will culling !e needed+ Compare risk vs cost savings
De fe nsi !l e+ Ac cu rat e+ Co m pe te nt +
C%LLI*)3 A Hypothetical E$ample:
Culling !y Domain In pre3processing4 it is decided to narrow the scope of your data through the use of email domain culling This allows you to eliminate email from non3work sources4 solicitationHspam4 weekly industry newsletters4 fantasy sports newsletters4 etc
'hat is the o!ligation to share the list of e$cluded domains with opposing counsel+ A pornography we!site is among the e$cluded domains The email was identified among the data for a prominent employee 'hat is the responsi!ility to those you represent+
D ef e ns i! le + Di li g e nt +
#&E3C%LLI*)H&EGIE' , 5%LF Avoid falling victim to the risks associated with under3 TA))I*)
informed or improper use of 7!ulk coding8 options of pre3 processing software applications Domain filtering is a useful tool in categori2ing and prioriti2ing documents !ut it does not negate the responsi!ility to review the documents Clustering or near dupe applications with categori2ations stating 7you don0t have to review those records 8 or similar Conte$t is relevant Since conte$t can differ for even Hash level duplicates4 you should not !lindly code e$act duplicates identically The conte$t may alter that categori2ation4 so it is critical to at least review the differences related to the conte$t of duplicates Avoid the temptation of the Easy 5utton
5%LF TA))I*)3 A Hypothetical

E$ample: 5ulk Tagging 3 *on3&esponsive Documents
Is an /DQ Hash matching duplicate of a non3 responsive document also non3responsive+ The file 7Take This -o! And Shove It /#>8 is found among thousands of other songs in a users iTunes li!rary An e$act duplicate of the file sits alone in a disgruntled former employee0s desktop folder named 79or The -erks8 The former employee is among several involved in a I# theft case Are !oth files e.ually non3responsive+
Def ens i!le + Acc ura te+ Co mp ete nt+ Dili gen t+
DE3D%#LICATI(* 3 Hash values 3Bou should know this:

Hashing uses an algorithm to compute a uni.ue value for a file
Even the most minute difference !etween @ seemingly identical files will result in completely different hash values
Hashes are deterministic , Hash algorithms will generate the same hash value for any static file every single time Hash values appear in a normali2ed4 he$adecimal format
E$amples of >@ digit /DQ hash values; The .uick !rown fo$ Cumps over the la2y dog
Hash Galue; TeM=SdTd>S@!!U?@U!d?Md>Q<@a<MTdU The .uick !rown fo$ Cumps over the la2y dog Hash Galue; e<dT=Tc@T=d=f!Mca=U?ffaddf@@c!d=
*umerous accepta!le algorithms e$ist E$amples include;

/DQ SHA3M SHA3@QU
DE3D%#LICATI(* , A Hypothetical E$ample:

De3duplication , &eview Strategies )lo!al de3duplication will result in fewer documents to review However4 it can hinder the review team0s understanding of conte$t as it pertains to the custodians Could a standard de3duplication policy !e used in every case+ How much of a part does the e$pense of review play vs understanding the conte$t+ 'hat other varia!les should !e considered+
Effic ient + #ro mpt + Def ensi !le+ Acc urat e+ Co mpe tent +
DE3D%#LICATI(* , Another Hypothetical E$ample:
De3duplication , #roduction Assume that you glo!ally de3dupe in order to reduce review costs 'hen it comes time to produce your documents4 do you produce the glo!ally de3 duplicated set4 a vertically de3duplicated set4 or all of the data Dno de3duplicationE+
A recent ruling resulted in sanctions when a party produced a glo!ally de3duplicated set of documents The issue related to the order in which certain key custodians0 data was compared to that of other custodians
Ef fic ie nt + D ef en si !l e+ Ac cu ra te +
CL%STE&I*) , Early Case Assessment DECAE
Concept 5ased Clustering

Compares documents !ased on actual content Similar documents can !e grouped together to increase review efficiency
)roups of similar4 non3relevant documents can !e de3prioriti2ed or possi!ly e$cluded )roups of similar4 speciali2ed documents can !e foldered for review !y e$perts or specific mem!ers of the review team
Effic ient + #ro mpt + Def ensi !le+ Acc urat e+ Co mpe tent +
Clustering is related to searching /any clustering technologies are language independent Some technologies allow for user directedJ clustering
J'e0ll cover this further when we discuss searching
SEA&CHI*) , A Real 'orld E$ample:
Searching 3 Feyword Search &e.uest &eceived A firm su!mitted a search re.uest that included the names of several large organi2ations Among the re.uested terms was 7Ernest 1 Boung8 5ased on the written discovery re.uest4 which mentions Ernst 1 Boung4 it is o!vious that the intent was to search for 7Ernst 1 Boung8 A mem!er of your team notes this spelling error Do you run the search as instructed or do you modify the spelling+ 'hat if the error is discovered after processing many of the documents4 or mid3way through your review+
De fe ns i!l e+ Ac cu ra te + Co m pe te nt +
SEA&CHI*); 5ASIC TB#ES A*D DI99E&E*CES
ey !ord "earching # $ %uic& Review 'oncept "earching "earchable vs. (on-"earchable Documents TRE' ) EDRM
Standard 5oolean (perators

A*D4 (&4 *(T4 'H$ 'ildcards4 9u22iness4 Stemming
Luality of results can vary

(ver!road results from use of 7kitchen sink8 strategy or inclusion of over3common terms strategy , Initial search terms will lead to !etter search termsA /issed documents due to lack of research when devising search
Take advantage of 7sampling8 to improve .uality of search terms
/any vendors offer consulting services to aid in improving the efficiency of key word searching
Ac cu ra te + De fe ns i!l e+ Co m pe te nt +
ey !ord "earching 'oncept "earching "earchable vs. (on-"earchable Documents TRE' ) EDRM
Two primary approaches are generally used
)uided and %nguided Ta$onomies DclassificationsE 5oth create 7clusters8 of similar or related documents
)uided Ta$onomies utili2e user or e$pert created 7guides8 to help categori2e documents that share similar concepts
Industry or case specific terms can !e clarified to ensure that certain words are properly interpreted !ased upon conte$t
E g The term 7option8 could !e categori2ed with 7stocks84 7compensation84 7price84 7market8 and similar words to help distinguish it from 7option8 used in reference to a choice
%nguided Ta$onomies identify concepts !ased upon the document collection

Allows user to identify related documents lacking specified keywords Identifies related concepts that may have !een overlooked Let0s take a look at an e$ample on the ne$t slide
ey !ord "earching 'oncept "earching - continued "earchable vs. (on-"earchable Documents TRE' ) EDRM
%nguided Ta$onomies 3 Latent Semantic Analysis DLSAE Analy2es the co3occurrences of words in the collection
Analysis resolves conditions wherein words have multiple meanings or where multiple words share the same meaning Considers relationships !etween words
The concept 7!icycle8 would relate to the concept 7vehicle8 The concept 7chain8 would relate to the concept 7!icycle8 $ut only where !icycle3related documents were concerned Documents mentioning 7restaurant chain8 would not !e related4 despite the presence of the term 7chain8 %ser could search for 7!icycle8 and get documents discussing 7helmets84 7pedals84 7tri3athalon8 or 7Schwinn8 that D( *(T actually contain the word 7!icycle8
ey !ord "earching 'oncept "earching - continued "earchable vs. (on-"earchable Documents TRE' ) EDRM
A )uided Approach %sing the 5ayesian Algorithm
5uilt upon the theorem authored !y Thomas 5ayes DMS=@3MSUME 5ayesian inde$es can !e used to identify documents that are conceptually similar to a selected sample set of documents The result is a category of similar documents that can then !e used to identify any additional documents that are likely of the same nature Email spam filters use 5ayesian mathematics to calculate the pro!a!ility that an email is legitimate !ased on the fre.uency of specific keywords found within them In Electronic Discovery applications4 this technology can !e used to create 7hot8 su!sets of similar documents as a category to find 7like8 documents !ased on the su!set
Searcha!le Documents
All content within the file is availa!le to !e inde$ed 1 searched 7Speaking8 documents and te$t !ased files
Dili ge nt+ Acc ura te+ Def ens i!le + Co mp ete nt+
*on3Searcha!le Documents
*on3speaking documents such as !inary files Encrypted or password protected documents Corrupt documents Image documents without any em!edded te$t
These may !e made searcha!le if (C& is generated for them
Are non+sear)hable "o)u#ents a""resse" in your pro"u)tion re,uests-
T&ECM
7The Te$t &Etrieval Conference DT&ECE4 co3sponsored !y the *ational Institute of Standards and Technology D*ISTE and % S Department of Defense4 was started in MTT@ as part of the TI#STE& Te$t program Its purpose was to support research within the information retrieval community !y providing the infrastructure necessary for large3scale evaluation of te$t retrieval methodologies 8 7/ost of today0s commercial search engines include technology first developed in T&EC 8
ED&/@
The ED&/ Search #roCect is intended to create a normali2ed search schema that will allow searches to !e written in an application independent manner It includes a !road array of search techni.ues6 from 5oolean to Concept H Clustering !ased methodologies The goal of ED&/ is to develop guidelines and standards for e3discovery consumers and providers
Te)hnology an" the lan"s)ape are both e.er+e.ol.ing Staying abreast o' both is your pro'essional responsibility
M http;HH trec nist gov @ www edrm net
D ef e ns i! le + C o m p et e nt +
SEA&CHI*) , A Hypothetical E$ample:
Searching 3 Stemming Current tools allow stemmed searches to eliminate unwanted word variations 9or e$ample4 a search for the word 7option8 in a stemmed search would return options4 optional4 optionor4 optionee4 optionally4 optioned4 etc In a !ack3dating case4 would you allow opposing counsel to selectively eliminate variations that appear to !e unrelated to stock options+ If yes4 would you e$pect opposing counsel to !e willing to provide a list of the e$cluded variations of the search term+
ETHICAL EDD
Topi)al Spea%er& -oseph Derting4 C9#4 CCST4 CC9A4 iCA4 CCA
-oseph Derting is a pioneer in the development and implementation of electronic discovery application processes As Director of Consulting and Hosting Services at ADS4 he works with clients from the onset of litigation through production -oseph0s industry contri!utions include; management of the conceptuali2ation and development of EDD software applications6 strategic consulting and providing technology3!ased evidentiary counsel6 ? years of managing electronic discovery processing6 creation and implementation of test procedures for the five generations of EDD software6 conceptuali2ation and development of electronic discovery software training materials 1 methodology6 and conducting on3site certification training programs in the use EDD software in nearly S= litigation support offices around the % S 4 % F and Canada -oseph has taught electronic discovery theory to over @== professionals in Europe and *orth America4 with more than ?=V training and speaking engagements to his record He has !een a featured speaker at numerous seminars and educational events He is certified !y (regon State %niversity in Computer 9orensics and trained in the use and presentation of electronic evidence in Court6 often appearing in % S District Court on !ehalf of clients K /e)ent Spea%ing Engage#ents 0sa#ple listing1 @==S 9&C# &ule Changes 1 Effects on E3Discovery 3 Gendor &esponsi!ilities 3 #ortland4 (& @==? %nderstanding /etadata CLE , Seattle4 'A @==T Data Culling /ethodologies CLE , 'ashington4 DC @==T EDD to English; A #rimer on 5asic Terminology4 /ethodology 1 #ractice CLE , #ortland4 (& @=M= 5ridging the )ap; Intermediate EDD /ethodology 1 #ractice CLE , Seattle4 'A @=M= Ethical EDD CLE 3 ACCA Southern California Chapter 2010Certi'i)ations Certified discover3e (perator4 discover3e Trainer Certified 9orensic #rofessional , (regon State %niversity Concordance Certified Software Trainer 1 9BI Administrator Certified iConect AdministratorK Certified Clearwell Administrator E"u)ation 5 A 5usiness Administration 3 %niversity of 'ashington4 MT?? Asso)iations ED&/ , Co3Lead , #ro!a!ilistic Hash #roCect4 @==T3@=M=

Ethical Edd: A Guide To Making Ethically Sound Decisions in Handling EDD Processing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethical Edd: A Guide To Making Ethically Sound Decisions in Handling EDD Processing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ETHICAL EDD

A Guide To Making Ethically Sound Decisions In Handling EDD Processing

'H( IS SHA#I*) THE LA*DSCA#E+

'HAT CA* B(% D(+

A&E B(% (* THE SA/E #A)E AS (%TSIDE C(%*SEL+

Eff ici en t+ Dil ig en t+ Co m pe te nt +

EACH STA)E &E#&ESE*TS &ISF

Do 'e Have It All+

Should 'e Self Collect+ Do 'e Cull Internally+

*ear Dupes+ (missions +

IDE*TI9ICATI(*3 A Hypothetical E$ample:

Used by permission of Tom Fishburne. www.tomfishburne.com

IDE*TI9ICATI(* 3 %*IGE&SE (9 DATA

Su!Cective vs Deterministic practices

Data /apping 1 Tape 5ackups

Data /aps 3 Identifying Data Sources in Advance

Tapes , JJJA Special *oteJJJ

LITI)ATI(* H(LD; The #ower of #olicy

Def ens i!le + #ro mp t+ Dili gen t+ Co mp ete nt+

LITI)ATI(* H(LD; The #ower of #olicy

5lack5erry 1 (ther #DA devices

Crafting #roduction &e.uests

#&(D%CTI(* &EL%ESTS , I/#(&TA*TA

G(L%/E (9 DATA , Bou should know this:

How much data do you have+

Culling Tools , In house or use a vendor+

C%LLI*)3 A Hypothetical E$ample:

5%LF TA))I*)3 A Hypothetical

DE3D%#LICATI(* 3 Hash values 3Bou should know this:

*umerous accepta!le algorithms e$ist E$amples include;

DE3D%#LICATI(* , A Hypothetical E$ample:

DE3D%#LICATI(* , Another Hypothetical E$ample:

CL%STE&I*) , Early Case Assessment DECAE

Concept 5ased Clustering

SEA&CHI*) , A Real 'orld E$ample:

SEA&CHI*); 5ASIC TB#ES A*D DI99E&E*CES

Standard 5oolean (perators

Luality of results can vary

Take advantage of 7sampling8 to improve .uality of search terms

SEA&CHI*); 5ASIC TB#ES A*D DI99E&E*CES

%nguided Ta$onomies identify concepts !ased upon the document collection

SEA&CHI*); 5ASIC TB#ES A*D DI99E&E*CES

SEA&CHI*); 5ASIC TB#ES A*D DI99E&E*CES

SEA&CHI*); 5ASIC TB#ES A*D DI99E&E*CES

Are non+sear)hable "o)u#ents a""resse" in your pro"u)tion re,uests-

SEA&CHI*); 5ASIC TB#ES A*D DI99E&E*CES

SEA&CHI*) , A Hypothetical E$ample:

You might also like

'H( IS SHA#I) THE LADSCA#E+

IDETI9ICATI(3 A Hypothetical E$ample:

IDETI9ICATI( 3 %*IGE&SE (9 DATA

SEA&CHI); 5ASIC TB#ES AD DI99E&E*CES

SEA&CHI); 5ASIC TB#ES AD DI99E&E*CES

SEA&CHI); 5ASIC TB#ES AD DI99E&E*CES

SEA&CHI); 5ASIC TB#ES AD DI99E&E*CES

SEA&CHI); 5ASIC TB#ES AD DI99E&E*CES

SEA&CHI); 5ASIC TB#ES AD DI99E&E*CES