In New Mexico State Investment Council v. Bland, a New Mexico State Judge found that Day Pitney successfully utilized TAR to: identify potentially relevant information with greater accuracy than standard linear review. Day Pitney LLP used a combination of strategies including Daegis TAR and managed document review services to achieve victory and receive a favorable order from the judge.

1. Judicial Acceptance of TAR:
Day Pitney Use of Daegis TAR more Accurate
and Efficient than Linear Review
Moderator: Anita Engles, Vice President Products and
Marketing, Daegis

2. Presenters
2
Doug Stewart
VP of Sales Support, Daegis
Cliff Nichols
E-Discovery Counsel, Day Pitney LLP

3. NMSIC v. Bland, D-101-CV-2011-01534
State agency chaired by Governor Susana Martinez
Trustee for sovereign wealth funds
Invests the Land Grant Permanent Fund and Severance Tax
Permanent Fund
Funds are established under the New Mexico Constitution
for the benefit of the citizens of New Mexico
Funds have market value in excess of $18 billion
NMSIC invests a portion of the assets in private market
investments
ClientClient

4. NMSIC v. Bland, D-101-CV-2011-01534
Pay-to-Play Breach of
Fiduciary Duties
Breach of
Contract
Unjust
Enrichment
Claims

5. NMSIC v. Bland, D-101-CV-2011-01534
Former State
Investment
Officer
Former Private
Equity Advisor
Politically-
connected
Individuals
Placement Agents Fund Mangers
DefendantsDefendants

6. Investigation and Settlement
• Investigate Facts
• Seek Settlements w/Small Players
• Seek Recovery from Big Targets
Strategy
• Multiple Sources & Formats
• Hundreds of Relevant Parties
• Informal/Formal Discovery
Investigation
• Massive Data
• Constrained Time
• Limited Budget
Challenges

7. Daegis / Day Pitney Solution
• Volume
• Budget
• Deadline
Drivers Approach Participants
• People—SME’s
• Process—MDR
• Technology—TAR
• Day Pitney
• Daegis

8. Daegis / Day Pitney Process
Identified Documents
Tested & Refined Search Terms
Trained Reviewers
Conducted TAR Review
Validated Results—Iteratively
QC’ed Relevant Documents
8

9. NMSIC v. Bland Case Metrics
Starting Population: 3.5 Million Docs
Starting Search Hits: 400,000 Docs
Final Search Hits: 100,000 Docs
Total Reviewed: 116,000 Docs
Review Team: 12 Reviewers
Review Time: 4 weeks
Relevancy Rate: 00.95%
Rel. Rate of Reviewed: 17.84%
9
Average Precision of Initial Keywords: 44%
Average Precision of Final Keywords: 84%

10. The Judge’s Decision
Findings of Fact
TAR “enabled the reviewers on
the document analysis teams to
work more efficiently…and
identify potentially relevant
information with greater
accuracy than standard linear
review.”
10

11. The Judge’s Decision
11
Conclusions of Law
The Settlements are fair, adequate and
reasonable.
NMSIC “conducted sufficient discovery and
investigation to fairly evaluate the merits…,
the risks of litigation and the range of
possible recovery.”
“The extensive investigation and discovery
conducted by Day Pitney has allowed
NMSIC to fairly evaluate the merits of the
Settling Defendants' positions during
settlement negotiations, without the need for
prolonged and extensive discovery.”

12. The Hearing and Outcome
What does the decision mean?
12
TAR as a Settlement Tool
No Presumption Against
Predictive Coding
Be Prepared for Savvy
Opposition

13. The Hearing and Outcome
13
E-Discovery Counsel
as Witness
Subsequent
Settlements
TAR/Predictive
Coding as a Solution

14. Q&A
14
Doug Stewart
VP of Sales Support, Daegis
dstewart@daegis.com
Cliff Nichols
E-Discovery Counsel, Day Pitney LLP
cenichols@daypitney.com