In GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc., California District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted the defendant’s motion to file under seal specific line items from third-party e-discovery vendor invoices that were submitted in support of its bill of costs.
Once again, ABA Journal is working on their annual list of the 100 best legal blogs, and they would like your advice on which blogs you think they should include. If you have a favorite law blog (or “blawg”, get it?), now is the time to nominate it for recognition in the ABA Journal Annual Blawg 100.
Last week, we covered the Burd v. Ford Motor Co. case where the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a deposition of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on the defendant’s search and collection methodology involving self-collection of responsive documents by custodians based on search instructions provided by counsel. In light of that case and a recent client experience of mine, I thought it would be appropriate to revisit this topic that we addressed a couple of years ago.
Whether they should or not, maybe they can – if they’re found NOT to be practicing law, according to a ruling from the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A., New York Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck, at the request of the defendant, entered an Order appointing Maura Grossman as a special master in this case to assist with issues concerning Technology-Assisted Review (TAR).
When EDRM announced eDiscovery Daily as an Education partner back in March, EDRM agreed to publish our daily posts on the EDRM site and it has been great to publish our content via the leading standards organization for the eDiscovery market! However, another part of our agreement was for eDiscovery Daily to provide exclusive content to EDRM, including articles sharing real-life examples of organizations using EDRM resources in their own eDiscovery workflows. Now, our first participant profile is available on the EDRM site and we’re looking for other organizations to share their EDRM experiences!
In Burd v. Ford Motor Co., West Virginia Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert granted the plaintiff’s motion for a deposition of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on the defendant’s search and collection methodology, but did not rule on the issue of whether the defendant had a reasonable collection process or adequate production, denying the plaintiff’s motion as “premature” on that request.
One of the most discussed topics at LegalTech® New York 2015 (LTNY) earlier this year was cybersecurity. We’ve started covering some of the trends related to security breaches with posts here, here and here and even my hometown baseball team, the Houston Astros, was recently hacked by a competitor. The latest victims of cyber hacking – the purported 37 million subscribers of the online cheating site AshleyMadison.com – may find little sympathy in their plight.
In Giuliani v. Springfield Township, et al., Pennsylvania District Judge Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr. denied the plaintiffs' motion for spoliation sanctions, finding that the duty to preserve began when the case was filed and finding that “plaintiffs have not shown that defendants had any ill motive or bad intent in failing to retain the documents which plaintiffs seek”.
Friday, we wrote about tracking file counts from collection to production, the concept of expanded file counts, and the categorization of files during processing. Today, let’s walk through a scenario to show how the files collected are accounted for during the discovery process.
A while back, we wrote about Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) in the eDiscovery process. Both are important in improving the quality of work product and making the eDiscovery process more defensible overall. With regard to QC, an overall QC mechanism is tracking of document counts through the discovery process, especially from collection to production, to identify how every collected file was handled and why each non-produced document was not produced.
A month ago, we discussed the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (DESI) workshop and the papers describing research or practice presented at the workshop that was held earlier this month and we covered one of those papers a couple of weeks later. Today, let’s cover another paper from the study.
In Malibu Media, LLC v. Michael Harrison, Indiana District Judge William T. Lawrence denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, upholding the magistrate judge’s ruling which found an adverse inference instruction for destroying a hard drive with potentially responsive data on it to be not warranted, and ruled that “it will be for a jury to decide” if such a sanction is appropriate.
As noted yesterday, LegalTech West Coast 2015 (LTWC) is happening this week and eDiscovery Daily is reporting about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show. There’s still time to check out the show if you’re in the San Francisco area with a number of sessions (both paid and free) available and at least 58 exhibitors providing information on their products and services. Here are eDiscovery and Information Governance related sessions in the main conference tracks.
Today is the start of LegalTech® West Coast 2015 (LTWC) and eDiscoveryDaily is reporting about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show. We will provide a description each day of some of the sessions related to eDiscovery to give you a sense of the topics being covered. Here are eDiscovery-related sessions in the main conference tracks.
Ever wonder why some documents are identified as duplicates and others are not, even though they appear to be identical? Leave it to Craig Ball to explain it in plain terms.
In Lynn M. Johnson v. BAE Systems, Inc. et. al., District of Columbia District Judge Robert L. Wilkins granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff's claims for negligence, battery, and defamation, but chose to “impose lesser, but nonetheless severe, sanctions” in the form of an adverse inference instruction for her remaining claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
A couple of weeks ago, we covered the software “mashup” from Rob Robinson’s Complex Discovery site, which is an excellent resource for discovery and general legal technology articles (and a daily blogger’s best friend). Last week, Rob released his worldwide eDiscovery services overview for 2014 to 2019.
In Themis Bar Review, LLC v. Kaplan, Inc., California Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major ordered the plaintiff pay for the cost to produce files in native format after the plaintiff originally produced unsearchable PDF images without metadata and failed to properly meet and confer with the defendant regarding production format as stipulated in the parties’ Joint Discovery Plan.
I was prepared to report some happy news today, as Chris LaCour joined EDRM last week as Director of Business Development. Unfortunately, with this happy news, I also learned of sad news earlier today. Jack Halprin, head of eDiscovery at Google, passed away on July 2 after a brief battle with Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. He was only 46 years old.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog