Press Release - Industry Veteran Greg Spicer Joins Orange Legal Technologies
January 29, 2009
E-Discovery Industry Veteran Gregory J. Spicer Named New Executive Vice President for Orange Legal Technologies
Executive Appointment Enables Company to Support Continued National Sales Growth
(Salt Lake City, UT) Orange Legal Technologies, a leading provider of one source litigation, audit, and investigation support services for law firms and corporations seeking insight on electronically stored information, today announced the appointment of Gregory J. Spicer as an Executive Vice President. In this role Mr. Spicer will be responsible for engaging with and supporting both Am Law 200 and Fortune 500 firms in the discussion, development, and deployment of Orange Legal Technologies’ OneO® Discovery Platform. Additionally, Mr. Spicer will oversee the management and development of Orange Legal Technologies’ national sales organization.
“We continue to be fortunate to be able to attract proven senior electronic discovery veterans – and Greg’s balance of expertise, experience, and success in his previous executive leadership roles truly enhances our ability to meet client needs” shared Bret Laughlin, President and Chief Executive Officer of Orange Legal Technologies. “Greg’s deep knowledge of the field of E-Discovery coupled with his expertise helping clients address analytics, processing, and review needs should provide us with the expertise we need to support our continued national sales growth.”
With over 20 years of litigation support industry experience, Mr. Spicer previously was the Senior Vice President of Sales at Encore. Prior to joining Encore in 2006, he was Vice President of Professional Services for Whitmont Legal Technologies, where he led the company’s national Professional Services Group. Previous to his employment at Whitmont, Mr. Spicer worked at IKON Legal Document Services, managing large projects for Fortune 500 companies.
About Orange Legal Technologies
Orange Legal Technologies is a leading provider of one source litigation, audit, and investigation support services for law firms and corporations seeking insight on electronically stored information. Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and with four locations nationwide, OrangeLT™ offers a complete suite of electronic discovery services to include collection, analysis, processing, review and production of both digital and paper-based information. Enabled by the OneO® Discovery Platform—an integrated, web-accessible electronic discovery platform that provides online analysis, processing, and review of unstructured data from the security of a hosted centralized repository—and augmented by best of breed electronic discovery partners, Orange Legal Technologies is a member of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) and the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA). For more information on Orange Legal Technologies, visit http://www.orangelt.com.
###
Media Contact
Rob Robinson PR@orangelt.com
Orange Legal Technologies - http://www.orangelt.com
251 South Floral Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
1-512-934-7531
RSS: http://orangelt.us/feed/rss/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/complexd
Unfiltered Orange: http://orangelt.us/about/news-events/unfiltered-orange/
Conceptual Search in Electronic Discovery
January 29, 2009
Written by Herbert L. Roitblat, Ph.D., provided below is a short overview of conceptual search in relation to electronic discovery.
Introduction: Conceptual Search in Electronic Discovery
According to the Radicati Group, the average business mailbox contains 4.3 GB of potentially discoverable ESI. The burden of dealing with that volume is obvious. Automated tools to help identify responsive and privileged documents are being used more and more as the only viable way to manage these massive volumes of information. Electronic Discovery professionals have been looking for ways to limit the number of documents that need to be reviewed, because review is usually the most expensive part of eDiscovery. Most commonly, these methods revolve around some kind of content search to distinguish those documents that are potentially responsive from those that are not. Content search also has the potential to make document review itself more efficient and effective, further reducing the burden.
To review or download the complete article, click here.
Press Release - OrangeLT™ to Introduce Near Deduplicaton and Advanced Conceptual Search into OneO®
January 29, 2009
Orange Legal Technologies to Introduce New E-Discovery Near Deduplication and Advanced Conceptual Search Capabilities into the OneO® Discovery Platform
Advanced Technologies from OrcaTec will Enhance Best Practice Defensibility and Reduce the Time, Cost, and Risk Associated with E-Discovery Analytics, Processing, and Review
(Salt Lake City, UT) Orange Legal Technologies, a leading provider of one source litigation, audit, and investigation support services for law firms and corporations seeking insight on electronically stored information (ESI), today announced the introduction of new near deduplication and conceptual search capabilities from OrcaTec LLC into the OneO® Discovery Platform. Launched in June 2008, the OneO® Discovery Platform is a SaaS based, integrated, web-accessible, forensically sound electronic discovery platform that enables online analytics, processing, and review of data from the security of a hosted centralized repository.
“As 2008 was the most active year to date for judicial opinions and rulings on E-Discovery, it is important that we continue to provide our clients the most efficient and economic tools available to help them meet the legal and economic challenges associated with the conduct of E-Discovery” stated Bret Laughlin, CEO and President of Orange Legal Technologies. “With the introduction of near deduplication and advanced conceptual search capabilities into our OneO® Discovery Platform, our clients will be able to leverage these new capabilities to defensibly find the data they need in a manner that saves them time and money while lowering risk.”
Near Deduplication – Getting rid of the clutter.
“For most organizations 20 to 80 percent of the documents in their repository may be exact or near duplicates of one another,” said Herbert Roitblat, Ph.D., Principal of OrcaTec LLC. “Near- duplicates clutter search results and place a heavy burden on analysis. This new near deduplication capability in OneO® will identify these near-duplicates and allow the system to take appropriate action – action that will significantly reduce both the technical and manpower requirements necessary for the processing and review of electronically stored information.”
Conceptual Searching – A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.[i]
Leveraging OrcaTec’s Information Retrieval Tool Kit, OneO® Discovery Platform Concept Searching learns the meaning of words from the documents that it reads, without having to rely on domain experts. This advanced concept searching capability allows legal professionals to find information even when they may not know exactly the specific words that a document’s author used. It also can provide more accurate results than can be obtained with ordinary taxonomy or ontology based technologies.
Fully Integrated Electronic Discovery Platform – Half the cost and time of traditional discovery.
These new features will be fully integrated into the OneO® Discovery Platform. Current OneO® pricing for the analytics, processing, and review of 100GB of data is approximately $21,000 – about half the cost (and time) of traditional E-Discovery services.[ii]
About Orange Legal Technologies
Orange Legal Technologies is a leading provider of one source litigation, audit, and investigation support services for law firms and corporations seeking insight on electronically stored information. Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and with four locations nationwide, OrangeLT™ offers a complete suite of electronic discovery services to include collection, analysis, processing, review and production of both digital and paper-based information. Enabled by the OneO® Discovery Platform—an integrated, web-accessible electronic discovery platform that provides online analysis, processing, and review of unstructured data from the security of a hosted centralized repository—and augmented by best of breed electronic discovery partners, Orange Legal Technologies is a member of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) and the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA). For more information on Orange Legal Technologies, visit http://www.orangelt.com.
About OrcaTec LLC
OrcaTec LLC delivers next generation software for information analysis and management for incorporation in third party applications. OrcaTec principals have long been leaders in electronic discovery introducing a broad range of innovations to the process of eDiscovery. OrcaTec also offers a full range of consulting services in electronic discovery, information retrieval, and information analysis. OrcaTec’s international client base includes electronic discovery service providers, government agencies, and companies in information management and advertising.
###
Media Contact
Rob Robinson PR@orangelt.com
Orange Legal Technologies - http://www.orangelt.com
251 South Floral Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
1-512-934-7531
RSS: http://orangelt.us/feed/rss/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/complexd
Unfiltered Orange: http://orangelt.us/about/news-events/unfiltered-orange/
[i] Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, 1594.
[ii] Predictive Pricing Estimator, Orange Legal Technologies, http://orangelt.us/estimator/pricing.html
Comparing Traditional vs. Advanced eDiscovery Approaches
January 24, 2009
Provided as companion notes to the recent ILTA Product Briefing (available “on-demand” @ http://orangelt.us/about/live-video-webinar-12109/) the following information is provided for your review/consideration/use:
The Challenges Of Traditional Method #1 - Process All Data to TIFF or Native for full linear review.
- Time Requirement: High Delay: Typically greater than 2-3 weeks (high delay) before legal team gets access to data for strategy formulation.
- Risk Factor: Low Risk: Low risk factor for execution of processing and review, however time requirements may increase litigation risk and monetary cost may create budgetary challenges.
- Monetary Cost: High Cost: Processing /Hosting 100GB of data typically costs* between $56,700 (Native Review) and $132,700 (TIFF Review) making it the most cost inefficient of electronic discovery options.
The Challenges of Traditional Method #2 - Index, Cull, and Process data for Native review.
- Time Requirement: Moderate Delay: Typically 2 - 3 weeks (moderate delay) before legal team gets access to data for strategy formulation.
- Risk Factor: High Risk: High risk factor as vendors conduct keyword searching with limited input from client legal teams – thus substantially increasing the risk of missing potentially responsive documents as well as decreasing defensibility of the search process (Judge Grimm, Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc.).
- Monetary Cost: Moderate Cost: 100GB initial data set with Indexing/Culling/Processing/Hosting typically costs** $40,850 making it cost acceptable.
The Benefit of Advanced eDiscovery - Index, Cull, Legal 1st Pass Review, and Process data for review.
- Time Requirement: No Delay: Typically 2–3 days (virtually no delay) before legal team gets access to data for strategy formulation.
- Risk Factor: Low Risk: Low risk factor as legal teams conduct keyword searching – thus substantially decreasing the risk of missing potentially responsive documents – and have access to analytics – thus increasing defensibility of the discovery process (FRE 502; Judge Grimm, Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc.).
- Monetary Cost: Low Cost: 100GB initial data set with Indexing/Culling/Processing/Hosting of data typically costs*** $21,427 making it the most cost effective of available options.
* @ $500/GB for Processing or $1,250/GB Conversion (TIFF) and $67/GB/Month Hosting
** @ $125/GB for Indexing/Culling, $500/GB for Processing and $67/GB/Month Hosting.
*** @ $125/GB for Indexing/Culling, $350/GB for Processing and $80/GB/Month Hosting.
Source: Orange Legal Technologies
OneO® Featured In ALSP Update
January 9, 2009
Provided as part of the January Update from the Association of Litigation Support Professionals, provided below is both a link and an extract (below) from that update highlighting Orange Legal Technologies’ OneO® Discovery Platform Review capability.
OneO® Review Module Product Summary
Orange Legal Technologies’ OneO® Discovery Platform is an integrated* electronic discovery platform that enables analytics, processing, and review of data from the security of a hosted repository, available via the Internet under a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) delivery model.
Used either as part of the complete OneO® offering (analytics, processing, and review) or used solely as a review tool, OneO® review capabilities include:
- Foreign Language Support enabled through Unicode Consortium standards and supporting foreign language scoping, searching, and review of data sets.
- Web Based User Access allowing for secure access and conduct of review from any location with Internet access without requirement for additional client-side applications.
- Integrated Workflow and Collaboration allowing for the coordination of documents, reviewers, and technology and providing for automation of processes to include reviewer roles, responsibilities, tasks and timelines.
- Audit and Reporting features allowing customization and automation of reports to support both scheduled and real-time status updates.
Providing the latest in technological efficiencies to users, OneO® Review can truly help users save both time and money in the conduct of legal review.
* Integrated at the application level vs. platform level thus providing speed and security efficiencies not available in most electronic discovery platforms.
Checklist for Review of Review Platforms
Company Name: Orange Legal Technologies
Company Web site: OrangeLT.com
Contact Info: Ronda Raymond
Phone: +1.415.989.7922
E-mail: info@orangelt.com
| Feature/Function | Offering |
| OneO® Discovery Platform — O3 Review Module | |
|
FORM OF DELIVERY |
|
| 1. Is the platform available in single-user software? | No |
| 2. Is the platform available in a networked version for use within an organization? | Yes (SaaS) |
| 3. Is the software available for use over the Internet? | Yes (SaaS) |
| 4. Can law firms or corporations license this platform and run it on their own network? | Yes (SaaS) |
| 5. Is the platform available from service providers? | Yes |
|
COSTS |
|
| 1. Per installation per year | X (monthly SaaS hosting) |
| 2. Annual maintenance | |
| 3. Per user per year | X |
| 4. Per concurrent user per year | |
| 5. Per case | |
| 6. Per page | |
| 7. Per gigabyte | X |
|
FUNCTIONALITY |
|
| Security. Can system handle groups of users? | Yes |
| Security. Can users access individual records w/i d/b? | Yes |
| Security. Is there access to individual fields (view, edit)? | Yes |
| Security. Can system track changes by user? | Yes |
| Security. Can users roll-back changes? | Yes |
| Database Structure, fields. How many fields can a database have? | Up to SQL limits |
| Database Structure, tables. Can the user add or customize additional database tables? | Yes |
| Database Indexing, initial speed. Approximately how long will it take to initially index 100,000 records that average 10 pages with 2K indexed characters per page? | Approx. 15 minutes (25GB/hour) |
| Database Indexing, subsequent waves. Does the entire database have to be indexed when additional waves of data are added? | No |
| Foreign Language Indexing. Will the platform index and permit retrieval on non-English language content? | Yes |
| Foreign Language Indexing. Will the platform index and permit retrieval on CJH (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) characters? | Yes |
| Foreign Language Indexing. Is there any limitation on the number of languages that can be indexed within a particular document/record? | UTF8 Unicode 4.0 |
| Foreign Language Indexing. Is there any limitation on the number of languages that can be included as search terms? | UTF8 Unicode 4.0 |
| Translation. Does the platform provide automatic translation? | No |
| Translation. How does the platform present foreign languages and their translations for individual records? | No |
| Translation. Does the system provide translations for search or query terms? | No |
| Collaboration. Does the platform provide an integrated calendar? | No |
| Collaboration. Does the platform provide integrated Wiki’s for team members? | No |
| Collaboration. Does the platform provide task lists for members? | No |
| Collaboration. Does the platform provide a place for members to upload notes, memoranda, etc., without putting them in the documents to be reviewed? | Yes |
|
DATA INGESTION |
|
| Load Files. Does the platform require a specific load file for records (e.g. LFP with text files) that are to be indexed? | No |
| Native Files (MS Office). Can the system load or index directly from MS Word, Excel, and PowerPoint? | Yes |
| Native Files (PSTs). Can system load or index emails directly from native PSTs? | Yes |
| Native Files (PSTs). Can system load or index notes directly from native PSTs? | Yes |
| Native Files (PSTs). Can system load or index calendar items directly from native PSTs? | Yes |
| Native Files (PSFs). Can system load or index tasks directly from native PSTs? | Yes |
| Native Files (NSFs). Can system load or index emails directly from native NSFs? | No (conversion) |
| Native Files (NSFs). Can system load or index notes directly from naïve NSFs? | No (conversion) |
| Native Files (NSFs). Can system load or index calendar items directly from native NSFs? | No (conversion) |
| Native Files (NSFs). Can system load or index tasks directly from native NSFs? | No (conversion) |
| Culling. Can system load or index only those items that meet key term search or metadata search criteria? | Yes |
| Culling. Coes the system offer concept or other advanced culling techniques for loading or indexing native files? | Yes |
| Deduping. Does the system permit de-duping within a single custodian? | Yes |
| Deduping. Does the system permit de-duping across the entire production? | Yes |
| Paper-Based Records. Does the system accept TIF with associated text for paper-based records? | Yes |
|
REVIEW |
|
| Working Format. What rendition does the user have the option of working with during review: | |
| • HTML | X (e-mail) |
| • Actual Native Application | X |
| • TIF | X |
| Working Format. If the user can view in native format, does the user have to have the native application loaded on her computer? | No |
| Searching, storing queries. Can users store queries? | Yes |
| Searching, concatenation. Can users search across multiple databases at one time? | No |
| Project Management. What options are there for allocating records to reviewers. | Yes (batch assignment) |
| Project Management, reports. What kind of progress reports are available to project managers? | See notes |
| Tagging/Foldering. Can the user tag or folder individual records? | Yes |
| Tagging/Foldering, e-mail attachment families. Can the user tag or folder Emails and their attachments as a group? | Yes |
| Tagging/Foldering, e-mail thread groups. Can the user tag or folder all the objects in an email thread as a group? | Yes |
| Tagging/Foldering, near-duplicate groups. Can the user tag or folder near-duplicate groups as a group? | Yes |
| Tagging/Foldering, concept clusters or groups. Can the user tag or folder clusters of documents related by concept as a group? | Yes |
| Tagging/Foldering, hierarchies. Can the user have hierarchies of tags or folders? | Yes |
| Redaction. If the platform offers native file review, can reviewers create TIF renditions on demand for redaction purposes? | Yes |
| Redaction. If the platform offers native file review, can reviewers create PDF renditions on demand for redaction purposes? | No |
| Redaction. If the platform offers native file review can reviewers redact the native file itself without changing the review copy? | No (can redact review copy without changing native file) |
|
PRODUCTION |
|
| Production, reduping? if records were de-duped for review purposes can selected records be re-duped for production purposes from within the platform? | Yes |
| Production, native files. Can users produce responsive native files directly from the platform? | Yes |
| Production, numbering native files. Do users have an option to number produced native files using their own alpha-numerical sequence? | Yes |
| Production, hash values for native files. Do users have the option to produce native files using hash values as file names? | Yes |
| Production, e-mails. Will the platform produce responsive emails in a PST? | Yes |
| Production, e-mails. Will the platform produce responsive e-mails as MSG files? | Yes |
| Production, TIFs. Will the platform produce TIF images from native files? | Yes |
| Production, PDFs. Will the platform produce PDFs from native files? | Yes |
| Production, TIF Endorsement. Will the production platform permit users to add confidentiality and other endorsement to TIF images? | Yes |
| Production, load files. Will the platform create load files for other review systems? (see notes) | Yes |
|
MISC. |
|
| Transcripts. Does the platform have special templates or scripts for working with transcripts? | No |
| NATIVE FILES What happens when an encrypted file is uploaded into System? Identified and placeholder placed in system so if it is de-encrypted, the file can be inserted into the system within original context. |
| How does the platform treat a document that has an embedded object or document? Document is extracted and listed as a child of the parent document. |
| Service Providers: Orange Legal Technologies |
Costing:
|
| Translations: OneO® supports text translation for up to two languages per document without manual intervention. |
| Collaboration: In Analytics (O1 Module) provision for data search sharing and in Review Module (O3) provisions are role based collaboration. |
| Load Files: Accept all standard industry standard load files to include EDRM XML Schema data ingestion. |
| Data / Review Assignments: Provided by an automated, wizard driven process that allows for user determined sizing of document review batches. Documents can be organized by custodian, date range, or categories – as assigned by administrator (client assigned and managed). Orange LT® offers professional services both to project management, case management, search term scoping (sampling), and productions. |
| Working Format: Native File Viewing, Document Rendering (Universal Viewer), and TIFF. |
| Reports: OneO® offers standard reports (templated) and custom developed report (via SQL), accessible via the administrator’s UI. |
| Tagging/Foldering: Users can tag and folder documents based on administrator determined and created tag and foldering nomenclature. Within tagging function, administrators can create sub-categories for tags, determine exclusionary logic between tags, and custom order tags. Within foldering function, administrator can create searches, tags, or other user defined classification criteria. |
Culling — OneO® offers e-Discovery services providing:
|
| Native File Redactions: Not Offered At This Time (as is standard throughout all current e-Discovery Review Tools based on alteration/tracking challenges associated with Native File Redaction requirements). |
| Production (Re-Duping) — Available capability. |
| Production Load Files — Can product all standard industry standard load files and custom load as required. |
For more information on how the OneO® Discovery Platform can save users 1/2 the Time, 1/2 the Cost, while lowering their electronic discovery, click here.