We will agree on paper to read for each session at least a week or two in advance of the session and we'll add it to this Web page as we do. Someone will need to volunteer to lead the discussion each week, and that person will clearly have a great deal of influence over what we choose to read! So bring your ideas to our first and second meetings, and at the end of the session we'll take a few minutes to plan out the schedule for the semester.
To keep things reasonable, we will resist the inevitable temptation to discuss two papers in a single week -- if a paper you want to suggest is too small for the discussion to fill an hour, just pick a different paper. And if you really do want to discuss two papers, let's use two weeks for that.
| || || || ||Jack G. Conrad, E-Discovery Revisited: The Need for Artificial Intelligence Beyond Information Retrieval, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18(4)321-345, 2010. (direct access with library authentication)|
| || || || ||Victoria L. Lemieux and Jason R. Baron, Overcoming the Digital Tsunami in E-Discovery: Is Visual Analytics the Answer?, Canadian Journal of Law and Technology, June, 2011.|
| || || || || Herbert L. Roitblat, Anne Kershaw and Patrick Oot, Document Categorization
in Legal Electronic Discovery: Computer Classification
vs. Manual Review, Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 61(1)70-80 (2010). (direct
access with library authentication)
|| Maura R. Grossman and Gordon V. Cormack, Technology-Assisted Review in E-Discovery Can Be More Effective and More Efficient than Exhaustive Manual Review, Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, 17(3), 2011.
|| David D. Cross and Sanya Sarich Kerksiek, Using
electronic search tools and search-methodology experts in
e-discovery: a discussion of recent case law and other
authorities, Michael D. Berman, Courtney Ingraffia Barton,
and Paul W. Grimm (ed.), Managing
E-Discovery and ESI: From Pre-Litigation
Through Trial, American Bar
||Email William Webber for copy.
|| Christopher Hogan, Robert S. Bauer, and Dan Brasil, Automation of legal sensemaking in e-discovery, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18(4):431-457, 2010.
(direct access with library authentication)
|| Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. Felman Production, Inc., 271 F.R.D. 125 (May 18, 2010) (direct access with library authentication)
|| Please email William Webber for copy if you are unable to access from WestLaw.
|| Sachindra Joshi, Danish Contractor, Kenney Ng, Prasad M.
Deshpande, and Thomas Hampp,
emails for faster eDiscovery, VLDB, Seattle, September 2011.
|| The Sedona Conference®, The Sedona Conference® Database Principles: Addressing the Preservation & Production of Databases & Database Information in Civil Litigation, 47pp, 2011.
|| Lynette Hirschman and John Aberdeen, Measuring Risk and Information Preservation: Toward New Metrics for De-identification of Clinical Texts, LOUHI, June 2010.
|| Gordon V. Cormack and Mona Mojdeh, Machine Learning for Information Retrieval: TREC 2009 Web, Relevance Feedback and Legal Tracks, TREC, 2009.
|| Sinan Aral and Marshall Van Alstyne, The Diversity-Bandwidth Trade-off, American Journal of Sociology, 2011 (direct access with library authentication).
|| Tom Turner and John Tredennick, Smart Sampling in e-Discovery, Tennesee Bar Journal, October, 2011.
||Email William Webber for copy.