Data Analytics

Our expert investigators use specialized computer software to review files, hard drives and email analytics, social media, cell phone and cloud data to ensure no information is missed.

Targeted Innovation

At ILS, technology, guided by discovery experts, provides the edge that helps us balance against the overwhelming resources that battling Big Law defense requires. We draw from our highly refined, Plaintiff optimized tool sets to solve Plaintiff specific needs. In short, we have a very robust, fully functional, technology infrastructure that leverages the best of Artificial Intelligence to find the key evidence and organize it so you can use it effectively. Defense oriented providers have technology too, but its focused on the funnel of elimination to minimize their risk and to produce as little as necessary. ILS’ tools use some of the same technology but are designed to find the key evidence. It isn’t the tools you have, but how you use them.

Technology Can Work For or Against You

All technology tools have strengths and weaknesses. In order to properly use the tools, one must understand what they can and cannot do. Importantly, results always need to be validated. It is just as important to test the discarded documents as it is to classify those first identified. Most defense-oriented providers are focused on the culling properties of TAR. They are adept at elimination. Machine learning can be a powerful tool, but it is taught how to decide by humans. We want to assure that defendants don’t allow their implicit bias to teach the system in a manner detrimental to Plaintiffs. Let us help you negotiate an effective ESI Protocol. The Rules are already biased against Plaintiffs – let’s at least obtain some balance in the discovery rules governing your case. Having ILS by your side to assure the agreements you make are beneficial can have a greater impact on the outcome than effective Vior Dire.

Our decision to become fully Plaintiff focused was predicated on several salient factors. First, working on Mass Torts and Class Actions, Plaintiffs sit in an asymmetrical posture relative to the volume of their production as compared to defendants’. As an eDiscovery Consultancy, that calls out a different kind of needs fulfillment for the provider. Defense oriented ESI providers are tasked with culling data as early as possible, processing, hosting and reviewing that data as it flows through the funnel of elimination.

Defense oriented consulting is predicated on helping their institutional clients reduce their risk by limiting the amount of data they need to process, host and review. And defense firms have their own eDiscovery practice professionals – lawyers who came from strong technology backgrounds lead the discovery protocols for the defense. These are sophisticated and very talented technology lawyers well versed in presenting ESI protocols, that strongly favor their clients’ interests and are presented to seem completely reasonable, both to the court and often to Plaintiffs' counsel. But that reasonableness masks a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The ESI stipulation is meant to disadvantage Plaintiffs and reduce risk for the large institutional clients and white shoe law firms who represent them.

In applying TAR, defendants want the maximum precision. They don’t want to produce any borderline or extraneously responsive documents. Precision is the percentage of retrieved documents that are relevant. Well, what about the other relevant documents that are NOT retrieved?  Recall is the percentage of relevant documents that are retrieved – that’s what Plaintiffs want. A high precision number is focusing on a subset and ignoring the larger context of the document population. TAR could retrieve a fraction of the relevant documents and still have a high precision score, even though there were substantially more documents that weren’t found than were scored in the calculation.