Technology Advantage

Insight into Name Normalization: What Is Your Name?

January 24th, 2022
Name Tag

Assigning a single unique name to identify an individual has created problems that precede the inception of e-discovery. Think of Santa Claus, St. Nicholas, St. Nick, Noel or simply Santa. These variations are associated with a unique individual and yet, our society has been using different names to refer to him since before we were born. In e-discovery, identifying individuals with information relevant to a dispute is one of the first and most important steps we go through at the inception of a case. As such, the identification of the different names for these individuals is critical to ensuring we do not miss potentially relevant files. 

In addition to the variation of names, the digital nature of information adds the complexity of format to the text. The electronic format of names and email addresses as they appear in headers or other communications may differ and the differences affect the way the name is indexed and captured. Therefore, it is also important to identify and consolidate these format variations.

Where should we look for variations of names?

Different sources of ESI may display names differently. If you are planning to collect email, then you should ask for all relevant email addresses – both business and personal (if the employee uses personal email to conduct business). If you are planning to collect social media, then you will need the usernames or aliases for the different platforms. You will also need the network usernames and any other usernames that the company uses for the employee (including chat platforms and phone numbers for mobile devices). You’ll also need to know if the employee’s name has changed over time or if the employee is referred to by any nicknames.

Can we cross-reference names in an automated way?

E-discovery platforms have name normalization tools that isolate and consolidate information in email headers and other metadata. This is an automated process that scans and associates the name variants, aliases and email addresses for individuals referenced in the data set. These associations are captured and the output should be available when reviewing documents.

Is this a “data cleansing” step?

Data cleansing is the process of organizing data to appear similar across all records and fields by (1) detecting and correcting correct or inaccurate records from a data set; and/or (2) bringing together data of varying file formats, naming conventions and columns and transforming it into one cohesive data set (such as revising the abbreviations “st.” and “rd.” to be “Street” and “Road” throughout). Name normalization can definitely be a data cleansing step but I recommend tackling names at the inception of a case so that your data identification, collection and review searches include all possible name variations for relevant individuals (e.g. last name changes after marriage/divorce,  nicknames and app-specific usernames).

Is the “normalization” process only for names?

The algorithm that evaluates the email headers for names and aliases also evaluate the entities that the person belongs to and standardizes the names of entities as well. Identifying entities is extremely helpful when analyzing communications and using data visualization tools.

What are the benefits of name normalization?

Name normalization:

  • Builds an inclusive set for key custodians.
  • Allows visualization tools to display information in an organized way.
  • Is the basis for communications analysis and the identification of additional custodians, search terms and relevant time periods.
  • Optimizes privilege and second level reviews.
  • Can be used as a tool to prioritize review based on custodians or potentially privileged data sets.
  • Optimizes search execution and results.

What are the drawbacks of name normalization?

The main drawback is that the normalization process may not include all variations because not all names have the same structure. In the US, for example, some names have middle names, a hyphenated structure, same first and last name or just initials instead of names. The variations in the structure should include variations in the first name as well (e.g., Elizabeth, Beth and Betty) or nicknames. Additionally, not all countries or cultures use the same rules for names.  For example, in some countries, marriage and divorce may result in someone’s last name being changed in a variety of ways; however, this may not be the case in other countries.

Conclusion – Use it or Not?

Name normalization is a process that should be implemented in your e-discovery databases as it reduces redundancy, improves the quality of the metadata and optimizes document review.

 

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this blog is not intended as legal advice or as an opinion on specific facts. For more information about these issues, please contact the author(s) of this blog or your existing LitSmart contact. The invitation to contact the author is not to be construed as a solicitation for legal work. Any new attorney/client relationship will be confirmed in writing.

 

Topics: E-Discovery Best Practices Name Normalization Data Cleansing LitSmart KTLitSmart KT LitSmart project manager E-Discovery Project Manager Relativity

Subscribe to the E-Discovery Newsletter

Related Posts

  • Data Mapping - Why is it Important for Successful E-Discovery?

    A data map is usually something that is generated along with a data retention plan and is a great starting point if and when an organization becomes involved in litigation and discovery. Long before litigation and discovery, however, it is important to understand the relevant data sources that may be in play and where those can be found within the organization’s various data systems. This blog explains what a data map is, what it contains and how it is helpful.

  • Pitfalls of Complex Search Protocols in ESI Agreements

    ESI Agreements cover the full gambit of e-discovery issues, from preservation expectations to production specifications. Sometimes, these agreements include an overview of the process by which the parties will identify the universe of potentially responsive documents by using specific date ranges, identifying priority custodians and developing proposed search terms. Adding another layer of complexity, this discussion is often had in a vacuum before the parties even know how much data their clients have. Coming up with criteria that identifies the relevant documents, but is not overly broad, in this vacuum can be difficult. However, the process is important because the date range, custodians and terms will inevitably dictate how much data is collected, processed and reviewed, which can significantly affect any litigation budget.

Newest Posts

  • You’re Gonna Need A Bigger Boat: Data Management and E Discovery Strategy

    “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.” 

    This iconic line was uttered by Chief Brody in the 1975 blockbuster film Jaws when he first saw the massive size of the shark they were trying to catch. At that moment, Brody realized they were in completely over their heads, and the boat they had was not big enough to accomplish their task. While Quint’s Orca fishing boat and his traditional methods were capable of handling previous assignments, they were not going to be enough to take on the enormous shark they were chasing. 

    For better or worse, the digital environment we live in has resulted in an explosion in the number of documents and amount of information created and used by companies in their daily operations. A mid-sized company’s internal emails alone can run into the tens of thousands a day, and that is before factoring in reports, meeting minutes, studies, presentations, and other business documents. Adding in external emails and related attachments, you are looking at millions of documents a year. Because of this increased volume of data, companies dealing with potential litigation must adjust accordingly. 

    Like Brody, they need a bigger boat. An effective e-discovery strategy can provide companies with a bigger boat capable of handling even the most massive litigation matters.

  • Now You See Me, Now You Don’t: Ephemeral Messaging Challenges

    The emergence of ephemeral messaging applications to communicate with friends, family, and coworkers quickly, securely, and effortlessly has boomed over the past decade. In that time, users of ephemeral messaging apps have risen significantly, from millions to billions of active users! Ephemeral messaging is an integral and evolving part of both individual and company communications with advantages and challenges impacting companies and the legal industry. Companies must consider the ramifications of their employees' use of ephemeral messaging and adopt policies and procedures to best protect themselves and comply with requirements relating to litigation and regulation. Courts have already begun addressing the failure to preserve relevant ephemeral messages and have been issuing sanctions in a myriad of legal challenges. Ephemeral messaging is here to stay, and companies, courts, and attorneys must understand and adapt to evolve with this emerging technology.

  • Generative AI E-Discovery Tools and the Importance of Prompt Engineering

    The explosion of LLMs (large language models) and other Generative AI tools designed to increase workplace efficiency and productivity has created a new lexicon of jargon and definitions. The term “Prompt Engineering” may be the most widely used new term to describe the method of using LLMs and Generative AI tools. Prompt engineering is the creation of text-based instructions or cues that a person uses to direct LLMs or other generative AI tools. These instructions are then interpreted by the AI tool. Learning to harness the power of e-discovery AI Tools like Relativity’s aiR for Review through prompts specifically constructed to produce the output you desire in your case can increase your efficiency. Implementing these prompt creation and iteration tips and tricks will help you use Relativity’s aiR for Review tool to more effectively to assist with litigation, document review, and deposition or trial preparation.