Sentences with phrase «review documents produced»

while outside lawyers review documents produced.

A military judge ruled that five CIA - held detainees representing themselves pro se are entitled to use of a laptop with at least 12 hours of battery power to review documents produced in their case, but not to other 21st century accoutrements of «technologically advanced law firms» such as PowerPoint, scanners, a DVD writer and Internet access, reports The Miami Herald.

Not exact matches

Barra said Valukas interviewed 230 employees and reviewed 41 million documents to produce the report, which also makes numerous recommendations for handling safety problems more effectively.

According to confidential marketing documents viewed by The Australian Financial Review, the assets to be acquired include two farms near Coominya about 60 kilometres northwest of Brisbane, Queensland, which produce about 3 million birds a year with contracts secured to Baiada until 2020.

Prince Soyebi described the composition of the Committee as one of the sources of its strengths and congratulated the old members who participated in producing the initial policy for being part of the review, just as he welcomed new members whose resourcefulness were needed to add value to the existing document.

State agencies have racked up millions of dollars in outside legal fees reviewing and producing documents, but so far the public has seen only snippets or logs of the millions of pages of records related to the case, like emails excerpted in the complaint.

The SEQR review process will begin with a scoping document produced by the company and subject to approval by the town board, which is acting as lead agency and heading up the review, and other «involved agencies.»

The review process will begin with a scoping document produced by Niagara and subject to approval by the town board, which is acting as «lead agency» under SEQR and heading up the review, and other «involved agencies.»

Its charter is to «review all city information policies, including but not limited to, policies regarding public access to city produced or maintained information, particularly, computerized information; (ii) the quality, structure, and costs to the public of such information; (iii) agency compliance with the various notice, comment, and hearing provisions of the charter and other laws applicable to city agencies; and (iv) the usefulness and availability of city documents, reports, and publications.»

Medical writers produce the documents that help companies push a drug or device from clinical trials through FDA approval, including literature summaries, applications to FDA to investigate a new device or drug, and documents intended for review by institutional review boards (IRBs).

Without the careful reviews and long - standing support of our Wallace Foundation project officers, Dr. Mary Mattis and Dr. Edward Pauly, this report would not be the thorough and comprehensive document that has been produced.

Just as today's Ether gases, Jane Friedman — my generous host at her site of the original Writing on the Ether on Thursdays, and Web editor at Virginia Quarterly Review — has produced a much - needed document for authors, with an explanatory article, Infographic: 5 Key Book Publishing Paths.

Since 2013, the subcommittee has orchestrated several successes and positive outcomes, some of which include: • Collaborating with the PIJAC Zoonosis committee to update the Healthy Herp Handling poster promoting healthy reptile and amphibian handling practices; develop the Zoonotic Disease Prevention Series for Retailers; draft informative store signage on how to prevent zoonotic diseases; participate in meetings on rodent and reptile disease transmission with the Centers for Disease Control; and produce and revise best management practices (BMP) documents; • Collaborating with the United States Association of Reptile Keepers on past and current attempts to pass legislation, ordinances, and regulatory activity that may impact herp ownership and related businesses; • Attending Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) meetings with reports and summary of actions affecting import and export of reptiles; • Addressing the 2013 Center for Biological Diversity petition to list 53 herp species under the Endangered Species Act; • Reviewing and commenting on the recent US Fish and Wildlife status review on the proposal to list wood turtles under the Endangered Species Act; • Submitting comments on proposed listing of flat - tailed tortoise and spider tortoise under the Endangered Species Act; • Introducing federal legislation in 2013 to allow for the export of certain constrictors listed as injurious in air shipments with aircraft that land in a state for refueling; • Providing volunteer support for auctions at 2013 National Reptile Breeders Expo and several North American Reptile Breeders Conferences; • Providing extensive consultation on constrictor caging standards in Ohio.

Work was then completed that same year to produce major documents needed by the Club: Constitution, Bylaws, Standard, Code of Ethics, and major policies and have these reviewed by members as well as to proceed to vote on some of them.

The 2006 Stern Review, quite the shoddiest pseudo-scientific and pseudo-economic document any British Government has ever produced...

Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy (BCCRWE) produced this document for the purpose of providing evidence that demonstrates that (former) Brown County (Wisconsin) Health Director Chua Xiong's conclusion regarding wind turbines and health concerns lacks validity and that her conclusion was based on a very flawed process by which submitted evidence was selectively reviewed and inconsistently weighed, or ignored altogether.

It is a pukka APS document produced by the sub-committee appointed to look into the review.

This is achieved by the state's lackey climate scientists producing the CAGW propaganda they were hired for, using methods like hiding data, hiding declines, forging documents, redefining peer - review, etc..

I agree, despite my posting links to half a dozen peer - reviewed papers on this topic so far, all documenting evidence to support my arguments, you have singularly failed to produce one piece of evidence, other than a link to a blog post.

The most prominent document arguing for this approach is the «Stern Review,» produced by the British government in 2006.

Perhaps it is because the same procedures have been adopted by many other assessments in many other contexts; the National Academies of Science, for example, produces consensus documents from diverse committees and panels that are subjected to expert review from selected external scholars (and it is perhaps noteworthy that NAS reports occasionally feature signed dissents on particular points).

But of course IWTs are not cars and peer - reviewed studies consistently document that IWTs produce sound that is perceived to be more annoying than transportation or industrial noise at comparable sound pressure levels.

My favourite quote comes from Prof Petersen of the Nederland Environmental Assesment Agency and are reviewing the IPCC report — «It is a major feat that we have been able to produce such a document which is such an adequate assessment of the science.

Another issue, as John Mashey and DC have carefully documented, is that the Wegman report was deliberately conceived and commissioned by Joe Barton and his staff through a highly partisan and biased process to avoid peer review and produce a desired result.

QMobile Insight allows your legal team to review, analyze and produce mobile device data — including texts, chats and call logs — within Relativity, the same way you manage email and document reviews.

The seminal study on this, published in 2011, showed that TAR was not only more effective than human review at finding relevant documents, but also much cheaper — producing at least a 50-fold savings in cost over manual review.

«All of the documents were processed, reviewed, and produced in Relativity, and our attorneys were grateful to have a resource to help them complete the project within the court - appointed deadline.

One Swedish doc management platform in particular, Precisely, is powering ahead into contract automation and now is in the developmental phase of producing AI tools for document review.

Dickinson Wright received a court - appointed deadline of 28 days to process, review, and produce the responsive documents from two hard drives — a total of 232,350 records.

During litigation, Dickinson Wright received a court order to pull out the former employee's documents from two hard drives — which ultimately totaled 232,350 records — review them, and produce the responsive documents to the court in 28 days.

«The first stage of progress in eDiscovery was about building out the full utility and power that's needed for large scale document discovery and review - to - produce workflows,» Jeremiah Kelman, co-founder and president of Everchron, told me.

In light of a number of recent court decisions on e-discovery, counsel and clients must consider, inter alia, the scope of what should be produced in discovery (e.g. whether entire hard drives or other devices need to be produced), employees» expectation of privacy in devices owned by their employer, whether irrelevant personal information should be redacted, who can review information produced in discovery, and the location where documents can be reviewed.

More than just for the producing party, the party receiving the documents could potentially bear significant costs to review thousands of pages of irrelevant documents.

When she produced the documents to the other side, she was producing all kinds of stuff that she hadn't reviewed that wasn't privileged and that wasn't redacted.

Sure, there are still records and documents to be reviewed but review in the context of a meaningful exchange of information, instead of making lists of pieces of paper just to be able to prove it was produced in discovery — or had not been produced.

After starting with over 8 million documents, through culling, predictive coding, analytics and privilege review, the healthcare companies produced less than 700,000 documents in total.

The investigation had produced more than 30 million documents, including emails, spreadsheets and other materials, that had to be reviewed and sorted into privileged and non-privileged information, a task that would take a team of junior lawyers months to complete and potentially be prone to human error and inconsistencies.

In the past, Dorsey had routinely encountered slow document review and production response times with previous litigation support systems, specifically when the firm needed to harvest massive document populations and review and produce them in a timely matter.

The final output of the review, the set of documents deemed to be relevant to the legal matter, must be «produced» to the other side as the final piece of the e-discovery puzzle.

A company was ordered to produce documents, which required review of almost 3/4 million documents, 30 terabytes of data — with only four months to produce the relevant information.

Moreover, once the data is extracted and presented in a meaningful way can further actions be made to exploit this data to, for example, perform additional actions that produce value, such as automatically completing documents that refer back to this data, or automatically triaging the results of an AI system's document review?

Review is often viewed as the culmination of e-discovery efforts and the most critical step prior to actually producing documents to the other side.

From the beginning of the case, our legal team assists counsel in strategic planning and drafting discovery requests to ensure the documentation is produced in a manner and scope that will make for efficient document review.

When foreign language documents are produced, the page count can be in the millions, making a traditional document review impossible.

Envision Discovery received a frantic call from a client that had received 14 large banker boxes of documents and a 20 GB hard drive of email data from their corporate client that needed to be reviewed and produced by the end of the following week.

Predictive Discovery combines an interdisciplinary expert team with predictive coding software to help corporate and law firm attorneys review and produce documents for commercial litigation and regulatory investigations.

«Technology - assisted review highlights... the fact that some number of relevant documents knowingly will not be produced.»

Increasing data volumes and stricter regulatory demands have produced sophisticated document review platforms and innovate technologies to tackle the challenges that lawyers face when presented with millions of documents to review in short timescales.

Recently I've had discussions with several lawyers at big firms and at litigation boutiques, all of whom have a clear understanding of their obligations and their clients» obligations to preserve, review and produce electronic documents, but all of whom seem to be stymied by the apparently uncontrollable, even irrational costs of ediscovery.

We set out to evaluate this relationship with real world data, and found document - level coding to be nearly 25 percent more efficient than family batching, even if you review and produce all of the members of responsive families.