Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by jasoncovey

  1. So this is a very basic task in Connect. First, you would retrieve the items tagged as YES under your potentially responsive category. Next, you would use the Show Family feature (in Connect, selecting all item in the table view, then right-click > Show Family...). Then, with deduplication disabled (which is important, as duplicate items that may exist across multiple families would otherwise not be selected, resulting in incomplete families), select the results that include that families (i.e. your original YES tag items, plus their families), then apply a new tag to the entirety of the
  2. Although I haven't performed this specific task with CDR data, I'm familiar with it, and have performed similar tasks with all manner of misc. metadata. Right off the bat, the only issue I foresee that you might run into is the inability to map data to certain fields in Intella. Off the top of my head, I don't know if any fields that are essential to communication analysis that cannot be written to, but that's something you would need to investigate. Perhaps a mod could speak to that specific issue. That issue aside, the route to achieving this type of data import is via Intella's load
  3. In working with versions 2.3 and 2.3.1, I am encountering a new issue that is proving to be quite inconvenient, and think that some additional granularity with regard to permissions is the most obvious solution. I am finding it a problem that, as a case admin, I can no longer edit tags: (1) that are created by other users; or (2) that were created automatically, such as via import of a coding layout. Ideally, I would like the ability to prevent users from creating their own tags, which can be very important when working with less experienced users and keeping the Tags facet from bei
  4. During recent reviews and in light of user feedback, I wanted to propose two coding layout improvements for a future version of Connect. The first has to do with adding a collapsing arrowhead for the top level tags, as they currently exist under the Tags facet. The use case for this has to do with the presence of long list of coding options. Examples might be required references to corresponding Document Request numbers (a common component of production specifications), or complex issues tagging that reviewers apply during review in order to leverage in later stages of a litigation matt
  5. This one is actually easy. Do this: (1) pull up some items from your case; (2) highly some for export and then right-click and select Export > selection... (you'll actually abort this operation, so don't worry about naming or the destination folder not being empty); (3) check the box for "Add to export set"; (4) then select that radio button for "Add to existing set," and then select the export set you want to delete from the drop-down menu; (5) when you select this radio button, the previously grayed-out "Remove" button will be highlighted, which you can then click to delete the export s
  6. I had been thinking a bit about this question and wanted to throw out an alternative approach. Of course, it's correct that Lucene does not directly support proximity searches between phrases. However, as has been previously mentioned in a pinned post, it does allow you to identify the words included in those phrases, as they appear in overall proximity to each other. Thus, your need to search for "Fast Pace" within 20 words of "Slow Turtle" should first be translated to: "fast pace slow turtle"~20 . This search will identify all instances where these 4 words, in any order, appear within
  7. I think that would work! As long as we would still be able to accommodate the scenario you described in Item No. 6 in your list, that sound like it would be a very simple solution. Jason
  8. So I read this several times today to make sure I understand everything that being described, and I think all sounds fantastic. This solves the majority of the problems that have been described in this thread. One additional issue that came to mind when discussing internally and thinking about scenarios we have grappled with previously. In culling data and creating batched review sets, it's fairly common to run into a situation where, as a results of the entire content of a ZIP archive being include, or due to false positive search hits, that a large portion, or even the entirety of a
  9. With regard to 64 GB RAM, which I have installed on a high-end Dell rackmount physical workstation with dual Xeon E5-2600 v4 processors, for 32 total cores, I have not been able to realize the performance I had hoped for in a machine dedicated to processing performance. Not that it was bad - far from it! It's just that I was thinking that better use could be made from the RAM and number of processor cores. In reality, despite having 10K RPM internal, enterprise class, SAS rotational drives and a 15K RPM system drive, it seems like the disk IO simply cannot supply enough throughput to make e
  10. I think what Todd is likely referring to is a Relativity-centric concept rooted in the so-called search term report (STR), which calculates hits on search terms differently than Intella. I know I have communicated about this issue in the past via a support ticket, and created such a report manually in Intella, which is at least possible with some additional effort involving keyword lists, exclusion of all other items in the list, and recording the results manually. What the STR does is communicate the number of documents identified by a particular search term, and no other search term i
  11. I don't really have an answer based on what you have described, but here is what I would do: Perform some proximity searches to see what those identify (e.g. "JR 0000"~3) Go to the Words tab for some of the documents at issue and see if the search text appears there, and if so, in what fields Take a close look at the native files and investigate the presence of formulas that might be causing the issue Make sure the items aren't categorized as having some kind of processing error I see that you mentioned Connect. Although it shouldn't be an issue, if possible,
  12. So Intella doesn't have any rules-based features to accommodate exactly what you're asking. However, if I'm understanding you correctly, the simplest solution is to revise the coding palette to make the Privilege parent tag as not required. That way, if the doc is non-responsive (aka Not Relevant), they can apply that tag, then move on. It IS a good idea to make that tag required. Another good practice is to make that tag with radio buttons so that multiple selections are not possible. It never ceases to amaze us how many documents are coded as both responsive and non-responsive at the co
  13. This is a particularly significant and ongoing issue for my users, as well. Although the simplified Review UI has been universally well-received by reviewers, and is now our default approach for even single-user document reviews, a lack of flexibility has created several challenges. It's difficult for a reviewer to understand why they can't return to a document batch they previously reviewed and make tagging changes based on new information that has come to light, which is totally normal given the constantly-moving goalpost in litigation and ediscovery (as well as the other contexts men
  14. Hello! I though that your questions could be best addressed visually, so I took a few screenshots of the load file export dialogues that address the settings you're interested in. With regard to providing TIFF and PDF, you simply need to check the option for "Also include PDF versions of images" in the load file options dialogue. I always specify another location for these files, as the scenario you're describing is not uncommon with productions in litigation matters. This provides maximum flexibility in your scenario. With regard to file naming, although not incorrect at a techni
  15. So you are correct that Intella cannot process PDF Portfolios. It can neither extract the individual PDFs that make up the Portfolio, or the native file attachments to the individual PDF-converted emails (if that's the manner in which the PDFs were created). Although there are some workarounds, they are pretty complicated depending on how far you want to take things in order to restore proper functionality. Before you set off on such a journey, not knowing the context of the production, if metadata was to be provided with the production, you would certainly be better off to go back to the p
  16. I think the most expedient answer is to decompress the ZIP prior to processing. This takes the ZIP container out of the equation as a parent item, at which point the the behavior you want is easily attainable. It is SOP for me to always decompress ZIP containers prior to processing in order to avoid this type of issue, which also causes Family Dates to be inaccurate as a result. ZIP files are a horrible, horrible thing in the context of document families. Hope that helps! Jason Covey
  17. In the ediscovery world, we are bombarded by both vendors and developers heralding the promise of advanced text analytics capabilities to effectively and intelligently reduce review volumes. First it was called predictive coding, then CAR, then TAR, then CAL, and now it's AI. Although Google and Facebook and Amazon and Apple and Samsung all admit to having major hurdles ahead in perfecting AI, in ediscovery, magical marketing tells us that everyone but me now has it, that it's completely amazing and accurate and that we are Neanderthals if we do not immediately institute and trust it. And a
  18. This sounds like a scenario where the reviewers did not tag document families consistently. What I would do is, with the tagged documents already showing: Display the "attached" field in the table view; Sort by that field in the table view; Select all of the items that have a check mark in the "attached" field; Right-click and select "Show Parents..."; Choose either direct or top-level parents, as appropriate Apply a new tag to the parent items, as well as the previously-tagged attachments Export via whatever method is applicable. Hope that help
  19. Jason - based on what you've described, which sounds like a typical litigation support load file production scenario, I think you are missing something. It sounds like you're performing the export with the Natives option checked in the "Load file options dialogue." With that option selected, all items are produced in their native format, in addition to images and text (if selected). Although you could manually delete EMLs and MSGs as you described, that process is subject to human error. More importantly, it would necessitate post-export editing of the native path field in the load file, w
  20. I wanted to add something that kind of expands on what Adam said by addressing a larger issue, but would also solve this challenge and others. Like other users, I'm constantly asked to find all the email between X individuals. Such an instruction is always provided by someone who can only think within the context of their own Outlook inbox, and can't grasp the steps required in Intella to achieve this. By the same token, like Adam said, the data is already there - we just need an easier way to recall it. What I think would make it easier is adapting Intella to be able to more easily bui
  21. I have had occasion to deal with Mac-based email recently in two different (non-forensic) matters. In one situation, I exported from the Mail App. to multiple MBox archives. In addition, I exported the raw Mail data from the hidden folder structure in the Mac Library. In the second situation, I had the distinct pleasure of exporting mail from the defunct Entourage app, last released in Office for Mac 2008. With that background, two questions - does anyone know of some online documentation regarding the specific metadata fields present in Mac email (such as X-Apple-Auto-Saved: 1 or X-Ap
  22. I have processed hundreds of PSTs with Intella, and when I encounter corruption, ScanPST has succeeded in resolving the issue for me well less than 50% of the time such that the file will then process correctly in Intella. OTOH, there has only been one case in which a PST would open properly in Outlook, yet fail to index in Intella. From a time and practicality perspective, third-part tools have proven the most useful for me in these situations. I have had very good luck with Kernal for PST Repair. Vound has previously mentioned that their favorite is PST Crawler, as discussed in this thre
  23. I am very familiar with this situation and also work for attorneys. They tend to get extremely frustrated by the difference between what is a duplicate from a forensic perspective vs. an email that obviously contains the exact same text. I would love to see Intella calculate a hash value for the body text, only, and/or introduce the capability to perform email threading in a manner similar to Equivio. The reduction in review time would be extremely significant. I don't know how it might integrate with the existing Smart Search functionality and/or the new paragraph analysis features, but t
  24. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but in a future version of Connect, I would like to see the ability of users to create export sets and the ability to download content in native format separated into two different permissions. The latter is an essential feature, and is a life-saver in the event a document isn't displaying correctly in the previewer, isn't printing correctly, etc. Allowing a reviewer to access this feature frequently negates my receiving a support inquiry. Export sets is another matter, entirely. All of my users would be completely overwhelmed by what cr
  25. I received a feature request from a fairly savvy attorney reviewer that I thought was very interesting so I wanted to share. With the current tagging functionality, if you have to go into the Add or Remove Tags dialogue to select a tag(s) to apply to an item, the suggestion was made that an additional text box be included that would populate the Comments field when applied. The rationale was that, at the moment you've made the tagging decision, you would be most in tune with any extraneous comments that should be included that couldn't be efficiently reflected in a tag. I know it's just a c
  • Create New...