1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates in general to the field of electronic data discovery (e-discovery). More particularly, the invention relates to methods and systems for storing electronic content in e-discovery management systems.
2. Background Discussion
Electronic discovery, also referred to as e-discovery or EDiscovery, concerns discovery in civil litigation, as well as tax, government investigation, and criminal proceedings, which deals with information in electronic form. In this context, electronic form is the representation of information as binary numbers. Electronic information is different from paper information because of its intangible form, volume, transience, and persistence. Also, electronic information is usually accompanied by metadata, which is rarely present in paper information. Electronic discovery poses new challenges and opportunities for attorneys, their clients, technical advisors, and the courts, as electronic information is collected, reviewed, and produced. Electronic discovery is the subject of amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which are effective Dec. 1, 2006. In particular, for example, but not by way of limitation, Rules 16 and 26 are of interest to electronic discovery.
Examples of the types of data included in e-discovery include e-mail, instant messaging chats, Microsoft Office files, accounting databases, CAD/CAM files, Web sites, and any other electronically-stored information which could be relevant evidence in a law suit. Also included in e-discovery is raw data which forensic investigators can review for hidden evidence. The original file format is known as the native format. Litigators may review material from e-discovery in any one or more of several formats, for example, printed paper, native file, or as TIFF images.
The revisions to the Federal Rules formally address e-discovery and in the process, have made it a nearly certain element of litigation. For corporations, the rules place a very early focus on existing retention practices and the preservation and discovery of information. In response to the climate change in the e-discovery arena, corporations are 1) enhancing their processes for issuing legal holds and tracking collections, 2) looking for ways to reduce the costs of collecting, processing and reviewing electronic data, and 3) looking upstream to reduce the volume of unneeded data through better retention policies that are routinely enforced. The new field of e-discovery management has emerged to assist companies that are overwhelmed by the requirements imposed by the new rules and the spate of legal and regulatory activity regarding e-discovery.
Currently, e-discovery management applications (EMA) rely on a variety of approaches to store electronic data for e-discovery, as shown in
Such conventional methods provide convenience and functionality, such as allowing the data to be updated, allowing it to be checked in and checked out, and so on. However, data stored for the purpose of e-discovery typically has the character of being immutable and unstructured: the data is going to be permanently stored, or at least for a very long time; it is not going to be changed or updated or checked-in or -out very often and it is typically unnecessary to organize or structure the data in a database or content base. In view of the immutable, unstructured nature of e-discovery data, such conventional storage approaches, in spite of their convenience and functionality, involve a number of disadvantages:
Thus, there exists a need to provide a way of storing collected content in e-discovery applications that eliminates unnecessary expense and managerial and administrative overhead, achieving cost savings and simplifying operations. From an EMA vendor standpoint, it would be desirable for companies to be able to redirect a portion of their storage budgets away from purchase of storage hardware and software to purchasing low-cost storage from the EMA vendor.
A method and system for storage of unstructured data in external data storage uses low-cost, minimally-functional external data stores (EDS) to store immutable, unstructured content. An external storage layer (ESL) interposed between an e-discovery management application (EMA) and the EDS constitutes an intermediary allowing access to external storage from the EMA and adding functionality unavailable on EDSs, offsetting the functional sacrifice incurred by using the EDS and preserving cost advantage. Caching content on the ESL during propagation to the EDS eliminates latency during file propagation. The ESL maintains content metadata and maintains an index of the data, allowing the data owner to search and retrieve from the EDS. The ESL compresses, decompresses, encrypts and decrypts data. An ESL vendor can service a number of clients on a fee or subscription basis. The ESL can distribute client data across EDSs and mirror data stored on a first EDS on another EDS.
A method and system for storage of unstructured data in external data storage uses low-cost, minimally-functional external data stores (EDS) to store immutable, unstructured content. An external storage layer (ESL) interposed between an e-discovery management application (EMA) and the EDS constitutes an intermediary allowing access to external storage from the EMA and adding functionality unavailable on EDSs, offsetting the functional sacrifice incurred by using the EDS and preserving cost advantage. Caching content on the ESL during propagation to the EDS eliminates latency during file propagation. The ESL maintains file metadata and maintains an index of the data, allowing the data owner to search and retrieve from the EDS. The ESL compresses, decompresses, encrypts and decrypts data. An ESL vendor can service a number of clients on a fee or subscription basis. The ESL can distribute client data across EDSs and mirror data stored on a first ESL on another ESL.
External data store (EDS): external file storage, usually, but not necessarily, remotely hosted, somewhere on the Internet, for example, and loosely connected to an e-discovery management application (EMA). A typical example of an EDS is the AMAZON S3 (Simple Storage Service) (AMAZON.COM, INC., Seattle, Wash.) that can be accessed by clients over the Internet by means of a protocol such as HTTP, HTTPS or BITTORRENT (BITTORRENT, INC., San Francisco, Calif.).
Such external data stores are intended by the provider simply as very low-cost, minimally-functional mass data storage. In order to minimize the cost and technical complexity of such EDSs, they typically have, in contrast to a typical local or networked file system, at least one of the following functional limitations:
In separate embodiments, similar data storage is hosted by the client itself or by an EMA Vendor. The ordinarily-skilled practitioner will recognize that such EDSs are often referred to in the art as “cloud storage.”
E-Discovery Management Application (EMA) is a software application aimed to orchestrate e-discovery activities and to store and/or process documents obtained during e-discovery. A typical EMA is ATLAS LCC (PSS SYSTEMS, Mountain View Calif.). In one embodiment, a single instance of an EMA is run by a single client. In other embodiments, multi-tenant EMAs are provided, for example by an application service provider.
EDS Storage Layer (referred to as ESL) is a software module that resides between EMA on the one side and EDS on the other side and provides services described below, necessary for all the parts of the system to work together. Different embodiments of the ESL are described herein, among them:
The term “ESL” is used to refer to all possible embodiments of the ESL.
Metadata: Within the present context, the term “metadata” is used to denote information about a file such as file creation, modification, and last access dates; file name and original path, which may include the computer the file was downloaded from and the user and/or group that owned the file. Accordingly, within the present context, metadata comprises all data about the file, but not the contents of the file itself. Thus, as used herein, metadata and data contained in a full-text index are to be considered distinct from each other.
While the foregoing EDS has been described as having marked functional limitation, this very limitation leads to numerous advantages for parties wishing to store large amounts of unstructured, immutable data, such as content being archived to satisfy e-discovery requirements in the event of litigation. This kind of content is immutable (will not be updated once inserted), it is not being constantly read by the EMA during operation, and it does not require immediate retrieval once it is created. Thus, the main functional limitations of EDS (remote location, propagation time, and access speed) do not impair EDS's ability to store such content efficiently. On the other hand, by storing such content in EDS, the content owner and/or vendor achieves cost savings and other advantages typical for EDS:
Turning now to
An operator, for example, the content owner, using the EMA 201, and through the intermediation of the LESL 202 transfers e-discovery content for storage in an EDS 204 by means of a network such as the Internet.
Content files collected during e-discovery, such as content evidence collected from data sources, interview results, generated reports, file attachments, audit trail information and other similar content can be stored by the EMA 201 in an EDS 204 instead of local storage hardware/software possibly including metadata, and full-text index.
Content of such type is immutable—that is, it will not be updated once inserted; it is not being constantly read by the EMA 201 during operation; and it does not require immediate retrieval once it is created. Thus, the main functional limitations of EDS (remote location, propagation time, and access speed) do not impair EDS's ability to store such content efficiently. On the other hand, by storing such content in an EDS, the EMA vendor achieves cost savings and other advantages typical for EDS.
The LESL allows access to the EDS from the EMA, at the same time adding functionality unavailable on EDSs, such as the ability to encrypt and compress content, security features and caching to eliminate the latency caused by propagating the data to the EDS. Thus, the content owner, by means of the LESL is enabled to partially offset the functional sacrifice incurred by using the EDS while preserving the cost advantage and technical simplicity. More will be said about the particular features of the ESL herein below.
As shown in
Referring now to
As shown in
The foregoing business models are provided only for descriptive purposes and are not intended to be limiting. Other business models will occur to the ordinarily-skilled practitioner.
One of the capabilities enabled by the present system is the ability to create a mirror of content stored at a first EDS, at a second EDS. In computing, a mirror is a direct copy of a data set. Preferably, the mirror and the original data set are synchronized, at least periodically, so that they are substantially identical at all times. In one embodiment, a live mirror is automatically updated by an ESL as soon as the original data set is changed. The ability to mirror a data set provides a number of important advantages:
Turning now to
As mentioned above, one of the functional limitations of an EDS is that propagation of e-discovery content to the EDS can be rather time-consuming. Because of this, the content may be inaccessible to the content owner for a fairly long period of time. As mentioned above, the ESL includes elements that make it possible to provide functional features that the EDS lacks. In one embodiment, the ESL monitors the status of content as it is being propagated to the EDS and reports back to the content owner when the content is available.
In one embodiment, as shown in
At some time interval after the content is propagated in the EDS, when the ESL checks the content propagation 813, the EDS may indicate 814 that the content is available. At that time, the content 805 may be deleted from the cache 815. Thereafter, when a request for content is directed 816 to the ESL 802 from the EMA side 801, the request may be forwarded 817 to the EDS and is served from the EDS 803, and passed to the EMA side 801.
While an EDS typically provides some sort of data security protocol, the content owner may find the protocol insufficient to satisfy data security requirements for e-discovery. For example, the underlying EDS may provide insufficient capability regarding secure file transmission between the EMA side and the EDS: the EDS may allow uploading and downloading files only through an insecure HTTP protocol. The interposition of an ESL between the EMA side and the EDS provides a front end that can expose a more secure transmission protocol to the EMA, for example, HTTPS. Thus, the ESL allows a content owner or a vendor to supplement, or even supplant, the security protocols in place.
In one embodiment, a remote ESL may overwrite an EDS's authentication and authorization mechanisms. For example, EDSs tend to provide authentication and authorization mechanisms that are not designed for multi-tenant support, such as that provided by a MESL vendor. In one embodiment, an ESL provides its own authentication and authorization protocol that assigns unique authentication credentials to each client of the vendor and provides access for different clients to different locations in the EDS storage, further described herein below. More will be said about partitioning of EDS storage for multiple clients herein below.
Additionally, the EDS may lack the capability to index the content or to perform full-text searching.
Subsequently, because the index and a text search facility are hosted at the EMA/ESL layer 902, a user 911 at the client side 901 is able to readily retrieve content from the EDS in response to a search request. The user 911 issues the search request 910, which is directed to the EMA/ESL layer 902. By searching the index 912 maintained at the EMA/ESL side 902, any content satisfying the user's 911 search parameters is readily located within the encrypted content 909. After the index is searched 912, a search result 913 may be returned to the user 911. After the user reviews the result, the user can request 914 specific items identified in the search. The request is relayed to the EDS 903 by the EMA/ESL layer 902. In response to the request, the EDS 903 serves up the encrypted content 909 requested by the user. The content is decrypted 916 at the EMA/ESL layer 902. The EMA/ESL layer 902, in turn, serves the content to the user 911.
The ordinarily-skilled practitioner will readily recognize that the processes of indexing and encryption/decryption are not necessarily paired. That is, content could be indexed at the EMA/ESL side without then being encrypted before being uploaded to the EDS. Additionally, content could be encrypted and uploaded to the EDS without first having been indexed.
In addition to the foregoing, there are other ways in which files may be modified at the EMA/ESL prior to uploading to the EDS: compression, for example. Reducing the volume of data to be uploaded by compressing it can be beneficial because it can reduce the amount of storage required, allowing more content to be stored per unit of storage leased or purchased, possibly achieving a significant reduction in the total cost of an e-discovery program, depending on vendor pricing models. An additional benefit to compressing the data is that network latency may be reduced because smaller volumes of data are being transported.
The ESL can additionally perform content transformations, such as extraction of files from archives and extracting email messages from email archives. The content owner may, for example, wish to archive a .pst file, which the ordinarily skilled practitioner will recognize as a “personal folders file” associated with certain software applications produced by MICROSOFT CORPORATION (Redmond, Wash.), such as OUTLOOK. In a typical .pst file, messages, calendar items, and other items are delivered to and stored locally in a personal folders (.pst) file that is located on a user's computer. However, it may not be desired to archive the separate item types as a single archival file. The content owner, may for example, want to store them as separate email, attachment, and calendar item archives. In one embodiment, the ESL performs the work of extracting the separate items from an archive and storing them as multiple files, and then reports to the owner that the archive has been extracted into multiple files, also reporting the metadata for each of the item types.
As items are extracted, the ESL also reads their metadata, so that they can be readily identified at a later time. After extracting the files, the ESL uploads the archive (Archive.zip) 1107 and the three files 1108, 1109 and 1110. While the extracted files are shown being uploaded to the EDS 1103 as text files, they could also be compressed and converted into an archive on the ESL 1102 prior to being uploaded. The ESL then confirms 1111 completion of the upload and extraction of the three files and reports the metadata for the three files to the EMA 1101. At the EMA side, records may be created for the extracted files 1112 and associated to the archive.
While the foregoing process has been described in relation to email and attachments, it is applicable to other types of archived content wherein it is important to archive items of content within context, but it is also desired to archive records according to, for example, type or series: accounts receivable records, for example.
In one embodiment, the ESL also includes means for ensuring data integrity. By means of a process such as that described below, the ESL verifies that a file returned from the EDS has not been altered or corrupted. Additionally, the EMA can use a similar process to verify that files have not been altered in a remote ESL:
The foregoing description of a file integrity algorithm is exemplary only. Other approaches to determining file integrity will occur to the ordinarily-skilled practitioner.
As described above, in one embodiment, a MESL may be hosted by an MESL vendor who then provides low-coast e-discovery storage for clients on a fee basis. In order to provide such a service to multiple tenants, one embodiment provides a series of capabilities that remedies the challenges involved in providing multi-tenant support.
In one embodiment, the ESL may provide storage partitioning. The underlying EDS partition commonly provided by the EDS vendor may be insufficient for a vendor hosting either an MESL or an EMA. For example, the maximum number of folders allowed by an EDS vendor may be less than the number of content folders needed to support multiple clients in a multi-tenant configuration. In such condition, the ESL provides mapping between partitions exposed to the EMA and partitions of the underlying EDS. Referring now to
Additionally, an embodiment of the ESL includes means for logically overcoming EDS limitations such as limitations on minimum and maximum file sizes. These limitations are overcome by the ESL, for example, by pre-pending extra bytes to an under-sized file and splitting over-sized files into multiple chunks.
The foregoing address-assigning scheme also creates the possibility that content can be distributed across more than one EDS. Thus, an ESL can store a first portion of a content collection with one EDS and a second portion with another EDS. Thus, a content collection can be subdivided into any number of units, with storage of those units being distributed across several EDSs. The addressing scheme allows the ESL vendor to know exactly which file is located on which EDS and to move files readily from one EDS to another. For example, if the situation occurred that one EDS vendor turned out not to be as good as another, the ESL can simply issue a command to transfer content to another vendor. Accordingly, the ESL vendor or the content owner is free to deal with more than one vendor as a result of the ability to distribute content across multiple EDSs.
As above, an embodiment of the ESL exposes a multi-tenant authentication mechanism from an MESL to an EMA. Referring now to
An embodiment provides “transparent archival” capability, wherein both “hot” content and archived content can be retrieved through the ESL the same manner. Referring now to
AP. I would suggest replacing the phrase “item number” with “item identifier” here and in other places.
In one embodiment, both current and archived content are stored in the original format and not converted to an archival format. In such embodiment, content is simply designated either as “hot” or as archived by the content owner; although the ESL vendor has not changed the way the content is stored. Even though current or “hot” content is stored in the same way as archived content, the vendor may adopt a pricing model wherein the charge for storing current content is considerably greater than the charge for storing archived content. The higher storage charge for current content is justified by the greater retrieval cost incurred by the ESL vendor, because the content owner is likely to need access to current content much more frequently than to archived content.
In another embodiment, current content and archived content are stored differently, as shown in
An embodiment offers the capabilities of documenting chain of custody, logging and providing an audit trail. A MESL may collect and provide chain of custody information by recording when documents are stored and retrieved, by whom and for what reason. Additionally, the MESL may perform system event logging and also maintain a collection audit trail by journaling all business events happening during the storage process, thus ensuring defensibility and transparency of the e-discovery process.
An embodiment provides per-tenant, per-matter, per-legal request traffic, storage, billing, reporting, and maintenance information to EMA or ESL vendors for billing purposes when the EMA vendor charges its clients based on number of legal matters and legal requests, traffic or storage. Per-tenant information is provided for an operation by an MESL Vendor that handles multiple clients.
The disk drive unit 1616 includes a machine-readable medium 1624 on which is stored a set of executable instructions, i.e. software, 1626 embodying any one, or all, of the methodologies described herein below. The software 1626 is also shown to reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 1604 and/or within the processor 1602. The software 1626 may further be transmitted or received over a network 1628, 1630 by means of a network interface device 1620.
In contrast to the system 1600 discussed above, a different embodiment uses logic circuitry instead of computer-executed instructions to implement processing entities. Depending upon the particular requirements of the application in the areas of speed, expense, tooling costs, and the like, this logic may be implemented by constructing an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) having thousands of tiny integrated transistors. Such an ASIC may be implemented with CMOS (complimentary metal oxide semiconductor), TTL (transistor-transistor logic), VLSI (very large systems integration), or another suitable construction. Other alternatives include a digital signal processing chip (DSP), discrete circuitry (such as resistors, capacitors, diodes, inductors, and transistors), field programmable gate array (FPGA), programmable logic array (PLA), programmable logic device (PLD), and the like.
It is to be understood that embodiments may be used as or to support software programs or software modules executed upon some form of processing core (such as the CPU of a computer) or otherwise implemented or realized upon or within a machine or computer readable medium. A machine-readable medium includes any mechanism for storing or transmitting information in a form readable by a machine, e.g. a computer. For example, a machine readable medium includes read-only memory (ROM); random access memory (RAM); magnetic disk storage media; optical storage media; flash memory devices; electrical, optical, acoustical or other form of propagated signals, for example, carrier waves, infrared signals, digital signals, etc.; or any other type of media suitable for storing or transmitting information.
In the foregoing specification, the invention has been described with reference to specific exemplary embodiments thereof. It will, however, be evident that various modifications and changes may be made thereto without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the appended claims. The specification and drawings are, accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative sense rather than a restrictive sense.
This application claims benefit of U.S. provisional patent application Ser. No. 61/015,635, filed Dec. 20, 2007, which is incorporated herein in its entirety be this reference thereto.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5313609 | Baylor et al. | May 1994 | A |
5355497 | Cohen-Levy | Oct 1994 | A |
5608865 | Midgely et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5701472 | Koerber et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5875431 | Heckman et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5903879 | Mitchell | May 1999 | A |
6115642 | Brown et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6128620 | Pissanos et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6151031 | Atkins et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6173270 | Cristofich et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6330572 | Sitka | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6332125 | Callen et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6343287 | Kumar et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6401079 | Kahn et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6425764 | Lamson | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6539379 | Vora et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6553365 | Summerlin et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6607389 | Genevie | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6622128 | Bedell et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6738760 | Krachman | May 2004 | B1 |
6805351 | Nelson | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6832205 | Aragones et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6839682 | Blume et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6944597 | Callen et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6966053 | Paris et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6976083 | Baskey et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
7076439 | Jaggi | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7103602 | Black et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7104416 | Gasco et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7107416 | Stuart et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7127470 | Takeya | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7162427 | Myrick et al. | Jan 2007 | B1 |
7197716 | Newell | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7206789 | Hurmiz et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7225249 | Barry et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
7233959 | Kanellos | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7236953 | Cooper et al. | Jun 2007 | B1 |
7281084 | Todd et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7283985 | Schauerte et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7284985 | Genevie | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7333989 | Sameshima et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
7386468 | Calderaro et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7433832 | Bezos et al. | Oct 2008 | B1 |
7451155 | Slackman et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7478096 | Margolus et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7496534 | Olsen et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7502891 | Shachor | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7512636 | Verma et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7558853 | Alcorn et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7580961 | Todd et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7594082 | Kilday et al. | Sep 2009 | B1 |
7596541 | deVries et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7720825 | Pelletier et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7730148 | Mace et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7742940 | Shan et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7778976 | D'Souza et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7895229 | Paknad | Feb 2011 | B1 |
20010053967 | Gordon et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020007333 | Scolnik et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020010708 | McIntosh | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020022982 | Cooperstone et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020035480 | Gordon et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020083090 | Jeffrey et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020091553 | Callen et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020095416 | Schwols | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020103680 | Newman | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020108104 | Song et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020119433 | Callender | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020120859 | Lipkin et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020123902 | Lenore et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020143595 | Frank et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020143735 | Ayi et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020147801 | Gullotta et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020162053 | Os | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020178138 | Ender et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020184068 | Krishnan et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020184148 | Kahn et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030004985 | Kagimasa et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030014386 | Jurado | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030018520 | Rosen | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030031991 | Genevie | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030033295 | Adler et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030036994 | Witzig et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046287 | Joe | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030051144 | Williams | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030069839 | Whittington et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030074354 | Lee et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030097342 | Whittington | May 2003 | A1 |
20030110228 | Xu et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030139827 | Phelps | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030208689 | Garza | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030229522 | Thompson et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040002044 | Genevie | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040019496 | Angle et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040034659 | Steger | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040039933 | Martin et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040060063 | Russ et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040068432 | Meyerkopf et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040078368 | Excoffier et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040088283 | Lissar et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040088332 | Lee et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040088729 | Petrovic et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040103284 | Barker | May 2004 | A1 |
20040133573 | Miloushev et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040138903 | Zuniga | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040143444 | Opsitnick et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040187164 | Kandasamy et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040193703 | Loewy et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040204947 | Li et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040215619 | Rabold | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040216039 | Lane et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040260569 | Bell et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050060175 | Farber et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071251 | Linden et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050074734 | Randhawa | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050114241 | Hirsch et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050144114 | Ruggieri et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050160361 | Young | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050165734 | Vicars et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050187813 | Genevie | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050203821 | Petersen et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050240578 | Biederman, Sr. et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050283346 | Elkins, II et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060036464 | Cahoy et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060036649 | Simske et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060074793 | Hibbert et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060095421 | Nagai et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060095687 | Hsu et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060126657 | Beisiegel et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060136435 | Nguyen et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143248 | Nakano et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143464 | Ananthanarayanan et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060149407 | Markham et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060149735 | DeBie et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060156381 | Motoyama | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060156382 | Motoyama | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060167704 | Nicholls et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060174320 | Maru et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060178917 | Merriam et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060184718 | Sinclair | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060229999 | Dodell et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060230044 | Utiger | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060235899 | Tucker | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060242001 | Heathfield | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070016546 | De Vorchik et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070048720 | Billauer | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061156 | Fry et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061157 | Fry et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070078900 | Donahue | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070099162 | Sekhar | May 2007 | A1 |
20070100857 | DeGrande et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070112783 | McCreight et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070156418 | Richter et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070162417 | Cozianu et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070179829 | Laperi et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070203810 | Grichnik | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070208690 | Schneider et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070219844 | Santorine et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070220435 | Sriprakash et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070271308 | Bentley et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070271517 | Finkelman et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070282652 | Childress et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070288659 | Zakarian et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080033904 | Ghielmetti et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080034003 | Stakutis et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080059265 | Biazetti et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080059543 | Engel | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080070206 | Perilli | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080126156 | Jain et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080148346 | Gill et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080154969 | DeBie | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080154970 | DeBie | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080177790 | Honwad | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080195597 | Rosenfeld et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080229037 | Bunte et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080294674 | Reztlaff et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080301207 | Demarest et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080312980 | Boulineau et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080319958 | Bhattacharya et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080319984 | Proscia et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090037376 | Archer et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090043625 | Yao | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090094228 | Bondurant et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090106815 | Brodie et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090119677 | Stefansson et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090150168 | Schmidt | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090150866 | Schmidt | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090150906 | Schmidt et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090193210 | Hewett et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090249446 | Jenkins et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100070315 | Lu et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
Zhu et al., SIGMOD '05, Jun. 14-16, 2005, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, pp. 395-406. |
Human Capital Mangement; “mySAP . . . management”; retrieved from archive.org Aug. 18, 2009 www.sap.com. |
Zhu, et al.; “Query Expansion Using Web Access Log Files”; Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2005, vol. 3588/2005, pp. 686-695, Springer-Verlag Berlin Hedelberg. |
PSS Systems, Inc., “Industry Leader PSS Systems Launches Third Generation of Atlas Legal Hold and Retention Management Software”, pp. 1-2, www.pss-systems.com (Aug. 2007). |
PSS Systems, Inc., Preservation Benchmarks for 2007 and Beyond, www.pss-systems.com, pp. 1-3 (2007). |
PSS Sytems, Inc., Atlas LCC for Litigation, pp. 1-2, www.pss-systems.com (Feb. 2008); PSS Systems, Inc., Map Your Data Sources, www.pss-systems.com (Feb. 200*); PSS Systems, Inc., “PSS Systems Provides Legal Hold and Retention Enforcement Automation Solutions for File Shares, Documentum, and other Data Sources” (Feb. 2008). |
www.pss-systems.com; retrieved from www.Archive.org any linkage dated Dec. 8, 2005, 131 pages. |
PSS Systems, Inc., Litigation Communications and Collections, www.pss-systems.com (2006), retrieved online on Dec. 8, 2010 from archive.org, 1 page. |
JISC infoNet. HEI Records Management: Guidance on Developing a File Plan. Jan 1, 2007, 7 pages. |
Cohasset Associates, Inc. “Compliance Requirements Assessment, IBM DB2 Records Manager and Record-Enabled Solutions”, Oct. 31, 2004, Chicago, IL., 54 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20090164790 A1 | Jun 2009 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61015635 | Dec 2007 | US |