Technology in Practice is an annual litigation technology conference that provides educational and practical content for Canadian legal professionals. It is hosted by Commonwealth Legal and supported by our technology partners and fellow industry experts.
Dec 14, 2017 11:17:27 AM | Marketing
In eDiscovery, lawyers often think they’re experts at crafting keyword search terms to reduce the volume of documents for manual review. Unfortunately, lawyers, and human beings in general, are not good at stringing together Boolean search terms that result in finding all relevant, or potentially relevant, documents.
The problem with developing highly-accurate keyword search terms is often caused by one of two things:
The result? Keyword search strings inherently miss the "unknown unknowns", and are therefore not complete.
There has been a lot of buzz about the Ernst & Young Inc. v. Essar Global Fund Ltd et al, 2017 ONSC 4017 (CanLII) Ontario Superior Court decision regarding the recovery of eDiscovery document review costs within the context of a bankruptcy proceeding under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). While on the surface it may look like the Court attempted to liken apples to oranges by comparing the dissimilar outsourced review costs borne by each of the Applicant (“Algoma”) and the Defendant (the “Essar Defendants”), this is not the case.