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.
In the class action In re Milo’s Kitchen Dog Treats Consolidated Cases, Pennsylvania Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly denied the defendants’ Motion to Compel Unredacted Facebook Data File and Production of Username and Password, disagreeing that the discovery of one highly relevant Facebook entry justified the defendants to be “somehow entitled to limitless access to her Facebook account”. Judge Kelly did order the plaintiff to produce previously produced redacted Facebook pages to the Court unredacted so that an in camera inspection could be conducted to confirm that the redacted information was truly privileged.
Craig Ball’s Ball in Your Court blog is always an excellent read, even when he writes it “across the pond” over in London. His latest post discusses how “fighting the last war” will eventually cost you when you come across an “e-savvy” opponent.
How are recent trends related to data privacy and security affecting the legal industry? Though one recent report was critical of law firms for failing to disclose data breaches, according to a new Q&A from Huron Legal, law departments, and law firms are getting smarter about addressing data privacy and security issues.
When beginning a new eDiscovery project, a good place so start is to estimate the various tasks that will need to be performed and identify the type of personnel that will be needed. It is also important as the project progresses to revisit the project tasks and assignments to determine whether additional personnel are needed or if you can cut back. Yesterday, we began discussing the types of roles that could be associated with a typical eDiscovery project, here are some other roles,
When beginning a new eDiscovery project, a good place so start is to estimate the various tasks that will need to be performed and identify the type of personnel that will be needed. It is also important as the project progresses to revisit the project tasks and assignments to determine whether additional personnel are needed or if you can cut back. Here are the types of roles that could be associated with a typical eDiscovery project.
In Younes, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc., New Jersey Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider granted the plaintiffs’ motions to compel the production of metadata for selected groups of documents, denying the defendant’s cross-motions to bar the production of metadata.
It’s hard to believe, but ten years ago this month the leading standards organization for the eDiscovery market was launched. Launched in May 2005, the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (now simply known as EDRM) was created to address the lack of standards and guidelines in the electronic discovery market. This week, EDRM moved into its second decade with its annual Spring Workshop in St. Paul, MN.
Among the many definitions of the word “zen”, the Urban Dictionary provides perhaps the most appropriate (non-religious) definition of the word, as follows: a total state of focus that incorporates a total togetherness of body and mind. However, when it comes to document review, a new web site by eDiscovery thought leader Ralph Losey may change your way of thinking about the word “ZEN”.
In Crews v. Avco Corp., a Washington Court of Appeals upheld a “death penalty order” against the defendant for discovery violations, including the failure to produce relevant information, but remanded for amendment of the final judgment of over $17.28 million to reflect any offsets for settlements with other defendants.
Since social media has become a big part of discovery, we like to good social media disaster story every once in a while. The latest example is the (now former) social media manager of my hometown Houston Rockets basketball team, who lost his job over an offensive tweet.
Wednesday, Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts submitted proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to Congress via an order, accompanied by letters to Speaker of the House John Boehner and President of the Senate (and Vice President of the US) Joe Biden.
If you’re a fan of a pro football team, you’ve been waiting months to see what players your favorite team will be drafting. That wait ends tonight as the annual NFL draft kicks off. When it comes to selecting football players, the most important player is the quarterback. Like a football team, every litigation team navigating the discovery process needs a good “quarterback”. What skills does your eDiscovery “quarterback” need? Let’s take a look.
Over four years ago, we covered an article in The New York Times that discussed how the use of artificial intelligence could lead to replacing “armies of expensive lawyers” during the eDiscovery process. Now, a new article in The Wall Street Journal online goes a step further, speculating that “computers will eventually pass the legal bar exam and defendants will be given the right to be represented by a computational attorney if they so wish”.
By far, the most important (and, therefore, the most asked) question asked of eDiscovery providers is “How much will it cost?”. Actually, you should be asking a few questions to get that answer – if they are the right questions, you can actually get the answer you seek.
In Gladue v. Saint Francis Medical Center, Missouri District Judge Carol E. Jackson denied the plaintiff's motion for evidentiary and monetary sanctions due to spoliation of evidence, finding that the defendant did not have a duty to preserve emails deleted as part of routine IT operations, had diligently attempted to recover deleted emails and that the plaintiff failed to show that any of the unrecovered emails were relevant to her claims.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog