Privileged document identification and classification system

• US 8,769,708 B2
• Filed: 01/26/2012
• Issued: 07/01/2014
• Est. Priority Date: 01/26/2011
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Consilio LLC
• Original Assignee: DiscoverReady LLC (Consilio LLC)
• Inventors: Messing, Yerachmiel Tzvi, Shub, David Matthew, Wagner, James Kenneth Jr.
• Primary Examiner(s): Shiferaw, Eleni
• Assistant Examiner(s): GIDDINS, NELSON S
• Application Number:
  US13/359,401
• Publication Number:
  US 20120192286A1
• Time in Patent Office: 887 Days
• Field of Search: 726/27
• US Class Current: 726/30
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 16/353 into predefined classes
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 16/93 Document management systems

Abstract

A litigation discovery document system is provided to help identify documents that might be privileged. In particular, a system is described in which documents within a document set are compared against one or more data sources which store data that indicate whether a particular document is privileged or potentially privileged. Human reviewers can confirm whether such determinations are accurate. Analytic reports can be provided which characterize the underlying methodology used to make such determinations. Related apparatus, systems, techniques and articles are also described.

Claims

1. A method for implementation by one or more data processors of at least one computing system comprising:

importing, by at least one data processor, a set of documents;

grouping, by at least one data processor, at least a portion of the set of documents based on common characteristics among the documents;

first comparing, by at least one data processor, attributes of a subset of each grouping of the documents with a plurality of pre-defined indicators, the indicators characterizing a likelihood of the document containing such attributes being privileged and not subject to disclosure as part of an ongoing litigation matter;

second comparing, by at least one data processor, attributes of a subset of each grouping of documents with a plurality of indicators characterizing a likelihood of the document containing such attribute not being privileged, wherein the plurality of indicators characterizing a likelihood of the document containing such attribute not being privileged is selected from a group consisting of;

language from a website page, language from a press release, and language from a product brochure; and

determining, by at least one data processor, which of the documents are potentially privileged based on the first comparison and the second comparison, the determination being applied to the entire grouping; and

providing, by at least one data processor, data identifying which of the documents are potentially privileged.

2. A method as in claim 1, wherein the attributes are selected from a group consisting of:

terms within a document, metadata for a document, document identification, sending entity, receiving entity, copied entity, blind copied entity, subject line, date and/or time sent, date and/or time received, file name, file size, file checksum, reviewed, hash, attachment, confidentiality, author, title, file type, document extension, pre-defined category, privilege, and pre-defined issues.

3. A method as in claim 1, wherein each of the documents determined to be potentially privileged are tagged with a privileged identifier.

4. A method as in claim 3, further comprising:

segregating the documents identified as potentially privileged; and

storing the segregated documents separately from documents not identified as potentially privileged.

5. A method as in claim 1, wherein the comparing comprises:

accessing at least one database comprising the plurality of pre-defined indicators.

6. A method as in claim 1, further comprising:

initiating, via a computer-implemented workflow, human review of at least a portion of the documents identified as potentially privileged, the human review providing a final determination of whether each corresponding document is privileged.

7. A method as in claim 6, wherein the human review comprises:

receiving user-generated input, via a graphical user interface, indicating whether particular documents are privileged.

8. A method as in claim 1, wherein the privileged indicators comprise pre-defined e-mail addresses and/or domain names.

9. A method as in claim 1, wherein the privileged indicators comprise used-defined attributes.

10. A method as in claim 1, wherein the privileged indicators comprise terms and/or documents previously determined as being indicative of privilege.

11. A method as in claim 1, wherein duplicate or substantially duplicate documents are grouped together, wherein documents are substantially duplicate when matching content within the documents is above a pre-determined threshold.

12. A method as in claim 1, wherein the comparing excludes headers and/or footers of the documents.

13. A method as in claim 1, wherein the plurality of indicators characterizing a likelihood of the document containing such attribute not being privileged comprise privacy terms.

14. A method as in claim 1, wherein the determination of which of the documents are potentially privileged are further based on historical decisions regarding privilege made for identical or similar documents.

15. A method as in claim 1, wherein providing data comprises displaying data indicating at least a subset of the documents which were determined to be potentially privileged.

16. A method as in claim 1, wherein providing data comprises transmitting data indicating at least a subset of the documents which were determined to be potentially privileged.

17. A method as in claim 1, wherein providing data comprises storing data indicating at least a subset of the documents which were determined to be potentially privileged.

18. A non-transitory computer program product comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more data processors, result in operations comprising:

importing, by at least one data processor, a set of documents;

grouping, by at least one data processor, at least a portion of the set of documents based on common characteristics among the documents;

first comparing, by at least one data processor, attributes of a subset of each grouping of the documents with a plurality of pre-defined indicators, the indicators characterizing a likelihood of the document containing such attributes being privileged and not subject to disclosure as part of an ongoing litigation matter;

second comparing, by at least one data processor, attributes of a subset of each grouping of documents with a plurality of indicators characterizing a likelihood of the document containing such attribute not being privileged, wherein the plurality of indicators characterizing a likelihood of the document containing such attribute not being privileged is selected from a group consisting of;

language from a website page, language from a press release, and language from a product brochure; and

determining, by at least one data processor, which of the documents are potentially privileged based on the first comparison and the second comparison, the determination being applied to the entire grouping; and

providing, by at least one data processor, data identifying which of the documents are potentially privileged.

19. A computer program product as in claim 18, wherein the plurality of indicators characterizing a likelihood of the document containing such attribute not being privileged comprise privacy terms.

20. A system comprising:

at least one data processor;

memory storing instructions, which when executed by at least one data processor, result in operations comprising;

importing a set of documents;

grouping at least a portion of the set of documents based on common characteristics among the documents;

first comparing attributes of a subset of each grouping of the documents with a plurality of pre-defined indicators, the indicators characterizing a likelihood of the document containing such attributes being privileged and not subject to disclosure as part of an ongoing litigation matter;

second comparing attributes of a subset of each grouping of documents with a plurality of indicators characterizing a likelihood of the document containing such attribute not being privileged, wherein the plurality of indicators characterizing a likelihood of the document containing such attribute not being privileged is selected from a group consisting of;

language from a website page, language from a press release, and language from a product brochure; and

determining which of the documents are potentially privileged based on the first comparison and the second comparison, the determination being applied to the entire grouping; and

providing data identifying which of the documents are potentially privileged.

21. A system as in claim 20, wherein the plurality of indicators characterizing a likelihood of the document containing such attribute not being privileged comprise privacy terms.

22. A method for implementation by one or more data processors forming part of at least one computing system, the method comprising:

receiving a service request from a remote computing system;

importing, by at least one data processor, a set of documents associated with a first litigation matter in response to the service request;

comparing, by at least one data processor, attributes of each of the documents with a plurality of pre-defined indicators, the indicators comprising a first set of text strings generated from a plurality of litigation matters other than the first litigation matter and user-defined text strings characterizing a likelihood of the document containing such attribute being privileged and a second set of text strings generated from a plurality of litigation matters other than the first litigation matter and user-defined text strings characterizing a likelihood of the document containing such attribute not being privileged;

determining, by at least one data processor, which of the documents are potentially privileged based on the comparison; and

providing, by at least one data processor, data to the remote computing system identifying which of the documents are potentially privileged, wherein the providing does not any of the underlying data from the plurality litigation matters other than the first litigation matter.