If you mean speed clicking through business manuals and duplicate emails, sure.
-
-
-
and what do you think would be in the production that would be materially different? It's going to contain duplicates, email chains, and obvious irrelevant documents.
-
That's true;
@SenBlumenthal just complained at the#KavanaughConfirmation hearing about the great number of duplicates, nonsubstantive docs, etc. -
I’m sure there’s a ton of dupes & useless info as in every production. I was making a joke, espesh since biglaw doc reviews pale hugely in comparison, importance-wise. We know enough about him to predict how he’ll vote on most cases, so the docs are unlikely to change minds.
-
HA, fair enough! I feel like I'm having a hard time recognizing jokes, there's so little humor these days....
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
1. This can be asserted for purposes of billing, but I do not believe that any such review is meaningful. 2. The GOP was given advance notice of the content and organization of the documents as produced, if not the documents themselves.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A prioritized review of 42000 pages (~8000-9000 documents) shouldn't take more than a day. Using basic techniques, it should be done overnight. We at
@Pangea3 turn this type of review overnight, in high stakes time-sensitive contexts. Happy to lend a hand in future hearings! -
Yeah, I'm sure a system where a single staffer is responsible for reading ~2,800 pages in a day is going to lead to a careful systematic review.
-
Why a single staffer? Why 2800 pages? For a very modest spend well within the Congressional budget (and Senators could split it), this review could be outsourced. With text analytics, it could be prioritized to reveal the most interesting topics first.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And how many staffers in a senator’s office vs associates at a big law firm? You can’t be serious.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
C'mon. I'm a BigLaw alum, too (tho for a brief period as an associate only). Fifteen staffers reviewing 42k pages is 2,800 pages per staffer reviewed in a single day. That's a little worse than "less than ideal."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
and yet, in 2009, 72 hours to read 1,000 pages of a health care bill was considered an absolute outragehttps://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/oct/07/speed-reading-health-care-reform-bill/# …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And that’s what’s wrong with what’s going on with Republicans today. They can review the documents, but that’s where it stops. There’s no time spent researching the document itself or its context. It’s kind of like how they get all their news from memes and that’s where it stops.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@pangea3 Holy fuck I feel like Mugatu in Zoolander. This wasn’t a god damn review to meet a production deadline where you’re just making sure any email with a lawyer’s name on it doesn’t go out the door. It was a review for purposes of substantively questioning a SC nominee. -
This is the correct analogy here: you’re preparing to take the deposition of the central witness in a case and you get sent the evening before 4200 new pages of her documents. You would try to review it, but you’d also move to continue the deposition in light of the data dump.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
David, you're ignoring the technical and logistical limitations. It generally takes a day to to load, index, dedupe, and batch the documents, let alone train the reviewers. You wouldn't even be able to begin the review by the next morning, let alone complete it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Sure, if you don't care what's in them.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.