Aim: To gain an understanding of document content while organizing them into logical sub-sets in an efficient and cost effective manner. Develop facts, reduce risk, reduce cost, leverage technology, facilitate collaboration and communication.

Extract from EDRM

Document review is a critical component to most litigation and is used to identify responsive documents to produce and privileged documents to withhold. It is the time where the legal team can begin to gain a greater understanding of the factual issues in a case and where legal strategies can emerge and begin to develop based on the type of information that is found in the collection of documents. There will inevitably be different strategies implemented for reviewing documents in preparation for production versus documents produced by opposing counsel, however the common thread is the need (a) to understand the scope of the review, (b) to put in place supervision and procedures for managing the reviewers and (c) to select the appropriate vendor, tools and platform for the review.

Your requirements

You want to perform a tool assisted review and need expert consulting support from a New Zealand based team.

How we can help

We strive to provide exceptional consulting expertise and to deliver quality electronic discovery services. We specialise in offering advanced Technology Assisted Review (TAR) solutions, including Continuous Active Learning (CAL) via RelativityOne and Nuix Discover. Our eDiscovery and forensic review tools are all available via a cloud hosted solution.

Cloud platforms provide your reviewers with a flexible ‘anywhere anytime’ solution, requiring only a laptop and internet connection. Mandatory two factor authentication provides additional security to protect your client’s data. 

Nuix Discover and RelativityOne offer the latest Continuous Active Learning (CAL) functionality to maximise review efficiency. CAL algorithms reduce your total time to review by constantly refining their predictions of every document’s relevancy based on the relevancy decisions being made by your reviewers. Peer reviewed research from as far back as 2014 found these savings to be significant