While the Electronic Discovery Reference Model from EDRM has become the standard model for the workflow of the process for handling electronically stored information (ESI) in discovery, it might be helpful to think about the EDRM model backwards, whether you’re the producing party or the receiving party.
In Wilson v. Conair Corp., California Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone granted in part the plaintiff's motion to compel production, by requiring the defendant to produce further ESI in native format if feasible or TIFF format with the associated metadata, as well as to produce associated metadata for its prior production if it had not already done so.
According to Norton Rose Fulbright’s Litigation Trends Annual Survey for 2015 released last week, companies in the United States continue to deal with, and spend more on litigation. From an eDiscovery standpoint, the survey showed that more than half of respondents preserve and collect data from employee mobile devices and use technology assisted review, and a clear majority of respondents still rely on self-preservation to fulfill preservation obligations for at least some cases.
In Clear-View Technologies, Inc., v. Rasnick et al, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal sanctioned the defendants $212,320 and also granted a permissive adverse jury instruction that allows the presumption that the defendants' spoliated documents due to a series of “transgressions” by the defendants and their prior counsel.
Rob Robinson’s excellent Complex Discovery blog has been a terrific resource for eDiscovery information for several years now, covering everything from a “mashup” of eDiscovery market estimates to mergers, acquisitions and investments in the eDiscovery industry. His article from last week provides some useful information to organizations looking to select the right information governance vendor for their needs.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog