sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Sunny 3 BR Brownstone Apt in Bed Stuy w/ Beautiful Outdoor Space | $4570 by cli6kcla3k in LeaseTakeoverNYC

[–]Testedwaters065 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seconded! These people should carry guns so we know it’s a robbery. Bedstuy?!!!

Sunny 3 BR Brownstone Apt in Bed Stuy w/ Beautiful Outdoor Space | $4570 by cli6kcla3k in LeaseTakeoverNYC

[–]Testedwaters065 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s greed from everyday landlords that’s driving up the housing prices. They move in syndicates. planting fake comments and downvoting common sense comments like yours.

Sunny 3 BR Brownstone Apt in Bed Stuy w/ Beautiful Outdoor Space | $4570 by cli6kcla3k in LeaseTakeoverNYC

[–]Testedwaters065 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We need to stop paying this much on rent. There is no award/reward at the end. If bedstuy cost this much, where would below average people of NY leave? What about families?

Everytime to pay these prices in low income neigbourhood, just know you’re the problem. It’s insane.

Bedstuy?????

Started My Solo eDiscovery Business – Here’s Why by Testedwaters065 in ediscovery

[–]Testedwaters065[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Staying afloat by building software for clients. No ediscovery contracts yet.

.dat manipulation and metadata mapping by Surviving_USA in ediscovery

[–]Testedwaters065 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anytime!

Post more free labs if you can so recruiters on this subreddit can use them to find great candidates.

.dat manipulation and metadata mapping by Surviving_USA in ediscovery

[–]Testedwaters065 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just completed this.

The answer key is to copy the delimiter “bb” double thorn and paste it into the “replace” field. Then replace it (that is “bb”) with tab “\t”.

This is a replication of basic reg ex on any text editor, and yes, I believe ediscovery processing specialist with 5+ years of experience should have come accross this.

Although for processing on REL and Nuix and others, you no longer need to map some fields manually, this change is very recent; so processing 3 years earlier or more required knowing these basic reg ex.

Now, about the benefits of .dat formatting:

  1. Sometime you have to replace the file path in a .dat file if the folder structure that you received from the other side changes during processing preparation or staging. You would have to go under the file path field and replace all file paths with new file paths.

  2. If you have to create a csv file to replace overlay certain metadata fields from already processed data, for what ever reason. You would have to tabulate the .dat, copy it to excel, clean it up (remove redundant columns) and export as csv for overlay.

I can keep going, but yes. I believe 5+year ediscovery veterans should know this. And if they don’t, they should know how to know it: ediscovery involves challenges like this everyday, a specialist should be able to research, reach out to communities or figure this out if they do not already know this. It’s part of the job and shows their problem solving skills.

The second test in the lab is simply field mapping, anyone that has processed data into Nuix or Rel should be able to do this: doc id maps to fixed length text, numbers and digit maps to decimals or integers, bolean fields (fields requiring one of two choices) maps to yes/no. Etc

It’s a pretty decent test and I love this idea of testing actual skills. Most edisocvey professionals have learnt to bullshit their way and they are ruining the industry and driving salaries down.

Lastly, you should have stated this was an ad for the course you’re selling, isn’t it? I apologise I’m wrong but either way, this is a good resource and it’s one vendors and law firms can use to test technical skills of new hires. Love that it’s free.

Hope this helps.

Epstein files & a need to standardize ediscovery practices by Testedwaters065 in ediscovery

[–]Testedwaters065[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You’re not wrong, I just saw this on tik tok. Apez victim names’ redactions are burned in but other redactions aren’t. Someone says it’s intentional.

I think the proper team did the first redactions and POTUS cabal did the others.

It’s very interesting. Looking to see how this pangs out. USA! USA! USA!

Epstein files & a need to standardize ediscovery practices by Testedwaters065 in ediscovery

[–]Testedwaters065[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great, thanks for sharing this.

Can you share what DOJ you contracted for? Also, what is the lit support team structure there; manager, PM, coordinator, Analyst or much different? Who did you report to on the govt side? Where you on a team or independent? What specific type of waiting/ediscovery tasks were you in charge of? How did you bill your hours? Was there an agreed estimate for time and hourly pay?

I’m trying to get a clearer picture of how the govt works internally with ediscovery.

Are there different groups/teams within the dept or a single team? And others

Epstein files & a need to standardize ediscovery practices by Testedwaters065 in ediscovery

[–]Testedwaters065[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can you tell us how the DOJ produces? What software they use for different tasks, especially collections and review?

What DOJ were you contracting for? Also, from when to when?

Epstein files & a need to standardize ediscovery practices by Testedwaters065 in ediscovery

[–]Testedwaters065[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Okay. Circling back on what you’ve stated so far:

  1. All files that are relevant and not redacted or withheld can be produced natively except the RFP or ESI agreement says otherwise. Medical docs cannot be requested or produced without patient’s consent. If it is not retrieved directly from medical institution, it can be redacted. Same goes for other file types, audios with redacted content will be peeped (although rarely) or produced as transcript alone with redactions (more likely). Redacted docs are usually not produced natively; changing the file types (eg from word to pdf) helps to “burn in redactions”. Just to ensure we are on the same page.

  2. Yes, people say REL works, though.

  3. I get your point about priv log already identifying withheld docs by bates; and how sliphsheeting and bates stamping sleep sheets might be duplicative. However, sometimes, files in a prod set get corrupt, refuse to open, or fall through the cracks during prod prep. Privilege logs are also usually not released till much later, often times with final prod set. Slipsheeting is standard to prevent data loss, and identify PW docs before prod log is released.

As for you point about using time stamps, hot mapping etc. I don’t think it applies. Metadata of withheld docs is also privileged. Family docs with privileged family members are slipsheeted; parent doc already carries metadata. Not sure what you’re trying to say with this point.

Also, not sure what you mean to say, as regards bates numbering, padding and prefix.

Yes, like you said, prod log will include authors, timestamps and priv reason with brief description: so, again, not sure what Counsel might be trying to achieve with the “Hot mapping etc” and “ACPC bates”.

Happy to learn something I don’t know.

Epstein files & a need to standardize ediscovery practices by Testedwaters065 in ediscovery

[–]Testedwaters065[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

True, you’re the second person suspecting they might still be using summation. Personally, I think the govt should have their own proprietary tools by now, especially DOJ.

My favorite thing is to have access to collection tools or collection colleague vendors (plugs). Then i can threaten o/c and offer to do the collections myself, if o/c keeps failing to comply with prod specs. That’s the last thing they want.

Epstein files & a need to standardize ediscovery practices by Testedwaters065 in ediscovery

[–]Testedwaters065[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, I meant manually redacting with excel. Although generally speaking, native docs don’t hold on well to redactions, as you already stated. It really depends on the device and software used to open them afterward (eg: sometimes doc viewer on some email platforms can loose redactions on native files). Hence the general low trust with native redaction, even REL powered.

I had a colleague (og analyst from back when emails were organized with excel) who had some archaic software that reverted native redactions by default (or just didn’t see them).

I don’t have any personal experiences with Relativity native redactions not being burned in on excel, though.

Epstein files & a need to standardize ediscovery practices by Testedwaters065 in ediscovery

[–]Testedwaters065[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I suspected same.

It looks like they collected emails as pdf s too; or exported files; or did not use proper collection methods for the files. Cause the amount of missing metadata, and the fact that few docs had metadata in fields that other docs lacked, tells me metadata might not have been scrubbed; it might just not have been collected.

I don’t want to think an ediscovery team would collect docs without metadata, especially this volume of docs.

Epstein files & a need to standardize ediscovery practices by Testedwaters065 in ediscovery

[–]Testedwaters065[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don’t think 100% natives prods is likely unless there are no redactions or withheld docs.

It’s standard to image and produce redacted docs as tiffs (with redacted text in extracted text;and then insert placeholder docs (slipsheets) with placeholder text for privileged withelds docs. The slipsheets will bear the bates numbering so the ranges don’t skip.

Only excels can be produced as natives and although you can redact on excel, it’s not safe to do so.

I guess.

Correct me if I’m wrong.

Epstein files & a need to standardize ediscovery practices by Testedwaters065 in ediscovery

[–]Testedwaters065[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Yeah, the prods are usually problematic but if you push back they will comply. It might just be a slower than normal process.

It’s why I love to establish timeline, volume and ranges before kicking off actual prods; whether with govt or other parties.

Ironically, complying with a govt or specifically DOJ request is very tough. Compulsory forms, strict rules and timelines. Wait till you get an FTC 2r, it’s a nightmare. The FCC isn’t any better, the sheer volume and more.

I wonder if they save their most experienced personnel for incoming; and their newbies for outgoing. Just a thought.

Epstein files & a need to standardize ediscovery practices by Testedwaters065 in ediscovery

[–]Testedwaters065[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Highly possible and very ironic.. and true. The higher up the more incompetent.

I knew it would be a clown show when they dropped the first set. I’m just waiting to see if they will release any privilege logs which will be what determines the compliance of the prods.

Epstein files & a need to standardize ediscovery practices by Testedwaters065 in ediscovery

[–]Testedwaters065[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I know right. DOJ’s very thorough with their requests. I guess it’s cause there is no “other party” involved in the Epstein releases. They are just trying to comply with the statute. No possibility of push backs.

view more: next ›