New release of Octane ver. 4.5 – enhancing ediscovery workflow

New release adds support for Relativity®, OCR and high speed forensic image processing broadening EDRM support through a unified platform

“Index Engines is committed to providing a single, unified platform that provides powerful processing of electronic data in support of eDiscovery and compliance. With deployment of the Octane platform our clients have streamlined costs and resources, improved overall responsiveness, and take advantage of best of breed technologies such as Relativity.” states Jim McGann, VP of Marketing at Index Engines.

Read full release: http://bit.ly/Sq3ZVi

Bigger isn’t always better when it comes to Big Data

Analyzing data: Why a “bigger is better” mentality may be at odds with intelligent information governance 5V’s of big data – Volume, Velocity, Variety, Value and Veracity. The Five Vs keep in-house counsel from turning “big data” into “bad data” http://bit.ly/Q4l56V @dean_gonsowski @InsideCounsel

Read entire article

Legacy Backup Tape Remediation Chalk Talk

Watch Ed Moke, VP of Operations at Index Engines explains the process of legacy backup tape remediation. Purging legacy disaster recovery tapes saves offsite storage costs (Iron Mountain, Recall and others) and eliminates risk and liability of the unmanaged user files and email. Index Engines supports direct indexing, search and extraction of files and email from tapes created using Symantec NetBackup and Backup Exec, IBM TSM, EMC Legato Networker, CA ArcServe, HP DataProtector, and others. Simply load DLT, LTO, AIT and other tapes in library and automate the process of indexing and extraction of the content based on legal and compliance policy. No need for expensive tape restoration or the original backup software.

Watch Video

Learn more about Tape Remediation

How to proactively Control E-Discovery Costs

On average, each gigabyte of data represents approximately $18,000.00 in e-discovery costs.

On a per-gigabyte basis, costs ranged from $125 to $6,700 for the collection of data, from $600 to $6,000 for processing electronic data, and from $1,800 to $210,000 for the legal review.

It is unrealistic to expect much room for improvement in the rates of human review. While it only costs about $.20 a day to buy one gigabyte of storage, it costs much more to have the stored data reviewed in the event of litigation. Thus, taking steps to establish a process and procedure for retaining only necessary data and deleting unnecessary data will reduce costs by reducing each gigabyte of data that needs to be reviewed. Full Article>

Learn more about reducing e-Discovery costs>

E-discovery: Tips for identifying and preserving ESI

Efficiency starts with good communication between outside counsel, in-house counsel and the IT department

Identification: it is helpful if an organization has a data map or server topology (a visual representation of a company’s network systems).

Preservation: The first step in preserving ESI is to implement a litigation hold. Outside counsel and in-house counsel should determine at the outset whether any issues might prevent the proper preservation of relevant ESI. Counsel should be mindful of recently implemented policies, network upgrades and system changes that affect older data. Retired computer systems (also called legacy systems) may cause problems because data upgrades or migrations can affect data integrity. Moreover, preservation issues often arise with network backup systems because they are not designed for retrieval in connection with litigation. Learn more on how to get to legacy data>

Data may only need to be preserved for certain key custodians. Counsel may want to limit preservation to a specific date range, target only specific types of data, or focus on specific locations or subject matters. Ideally, the goal is to preserve only the ESI that a company may need for a particular matter. Full Article>

Sneak Peak Webinar – Index Engines 4.5

Be the first to see Index Engines latest version of the Octane Intelligent Discovery platform. Exciting new features that extend the workflow and increase overall functionality for eDiscovery will be announced at a webinar on Sept 27th.

Learn about new load file support for Relativity, support for OCR scanned images and pdf’s, and high speed Forensic Image processing – no need for mounting. Attend this webinar

Survey: Legal Compliance Remains Key Challenge for 78% of Information Governance and eDiscovery Pros

With company data growth constantly on the rise, an on-going key concern for information governance and eDiscovery professionals is the management of this data and ability to quickly react to and comply with legal hold and preservation requests, according to a recent survey to legal practitioners to uncover the key drivers behind investments in information governance and eDiscovery solutions.

Specifically, the survey found that compliance was the number one challenge for 78% of respondents. Additionally, respondents also expressed concern over enforcing company-wide policies and are struggling to implement strategies to manage their data, shedding light on the importance of implementing information governance policies.

This study underscores the need for organizations to consider an all-encompassing information governance platform that provides data indexing, mapping, extraction and archiving. Read entire article

Legal Hold and Preservation at Center of Apple/Samsung Battle

As Apple and Samsung battle over design patents, in Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., No. C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2012), it is clear that legal hold and preservation of evidence may be a key factor in the outcome of the case. Once again a high profile case showcases eDiscovery and the importance of proper collection and preservation of evidence. Technology is now in place that can properly place user files and email in a forensically sound archive for safekeeping. One of the key challenges in the Apple Samsung case was that the email server had an auto-delete feature turned on which purged potential email evidence, overriding the legal hold order, according to a schedule defined by the email administrator. Using a legal hold archive, once a policy is defined and implemented all responsive data will automatically be securely copied into the archive regardless of the auto delete configurations on the email server. Relying on an active email server for the preservation of email is risky as this environment is not designed for legal hold. As these high profile cases continue to showcase the eDiscovery and legal hold challenges, it is clear that organizations will begin to focus on their internal litigation support and archiving platforms and define an environment that will ensure accurate and reliable processes