As noted yesterday, the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) annual educational conference of 2015 (now known as ILTACON) is happening this week and eDiscovery Daily will be reporting this week about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show. If you’re in the Las Vegas area, come check out the show at Caesars Palace – there are a number of sessions available and over 190(!) exhibitors providing information on their products and services. Here are sessions in the main conference tracks today.
The International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) annual educational conference of 2015 (now known as ILTACON) kicked off yesterday with several networking events, and begins in earnest today with the first day of sessions. If you’re in the Las Vegas area, come check out the show at Caesars Palace – there are a number of sessions available and over 190(!) exhibitors providing information on their products and services. Here are sessions in the main conference tracks today.
It’s a rare Saturday post for us as we get ready for ILTACON 2015, the (newly named this year) annual educational conference for the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA), which will be at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas this year. It starts tomorrow with several networking events, and begins in earnest on Monday with the first day of sessions. Just a warning, Caesars Palace is not pager friendly! Here are a few resources to help you get ready.
For several years, the Enron data set (converted to Outlook by the EDRM Data Set team back in November of 2010) has been the only viable set of public domain data available for testing and demonstration of eDiscovery processing and review applications. Chances are, if you’ve seen a demo of an eDiscovery application in the last few years, it was using Enron data. Now, the EDRM Data Set team has begun to offer some new dataset options.
If I had known that yesterday was National Dog Day, I would have posted this then, instead of today, but it’s a great story any day. As reported by ABA Journal, Discover Magazine and NBC News, there is a new type of forensic collection device being used in criminal forensic investigations. His name is Bear and he’s a black Labrador.
If you’ve used any review tool, you’re familiar with the “tag” field to classify documents. Whether classifying documents as responsive, non-responsive, privileged, or applicable to any of a number of issues, you’ve probably used a tag field to simply check a document to indicate that the associated characteristic of the document is “true”. But, if you fall in love with the tag field too much, your database can become unmanageable and you may find yourself playing “hide and seek” to try to find the desired tag.
Understanding the internal and external challenges that your organization faces allows it to approach ongoing and future discovery more strategically. A “SWOT” analysis is a tool that can be used to develop that understanding.
In ACI Worldwide Corp. v. MasterCard Technologies, LLC and MasterCard International, Inc., Nebraska Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett, acknowledging that the Court “simply does not have the expertise necessary to determine the best methodology to be employed in retrieving the requested materials in a safe, non-obtrusive, and cost-effective manner”, ordered the parties to “once again” confer in an effort to reach an agreement regarding the search methodology to be employed by the defendants in retrieving the information requested by the plaintiff.
In April 2014, we covered the seventh annual benchmarking study of eDiscovery Practices for Government Agencies conducted by Deloitte and covered the eighth annual study last December. Apparently, Deloitte operates on an eight month year – their Ninth Annual Benchmarking Study of Electronic Discovery Practices for Government Agencies is available now.
Yesterday, we gave you a pop quiz for the eDiscovery case law that we’ve covered recently. If you’re reading the blog each day, these questions should be easy! Let's see how you did. Here are the answers.
Here's an opportunity to give you a chance to catch up on cases we’ve covered recently with a case law pop quiz! If you’re reading the blog each day, these questions should be easy! If not, we’ve provided a link to the post with the answer. We’re that nice. Test your knowledge! Tomorrow, we’ll post the answers to this pop quiz for those who don’t know and didn’t look them up.
There is less than two weeks left before ILTACON 2015, the annual conference for the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas. eDiscovery Daily will be at the show and providing coverage before, during and after the show. If you’re attending (or thinking of attending), here is one session that you should put on your list to check out.
In Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., after the plaintiff designated 95% of its forensically-produced documents (141,525 of 148,636) as “highly confidential”, Florida District Judge Jonathan Goodman ordered the plaintiff to re-review and re-designate those documents within ten days, and also assessed a $25,000 fees award against the plaintiff’s outside counsel to compensate the defendant for its efforts in reviewing the documents.
In Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. v. Premium Beef Feeders, LLC, Kansas Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James granted the defendants’ motion to compel production of documents, overruling the plaintiffs’ objections to the discovery request in finding that “Plaintiff has not satisfied its burden to show that producing the requested documents would be unduly burdensome”.
We’ve been covering the progress of adoption of changes to the Federal Rules and the associated debate regarding the rules – especially Rule 37(e) – for over two years. Unless Congress introduces legislation to affect the timing or content of the rules, the rules will become effective on December 1 of this year. But, did you know that there are new rules amendments for the District of Columbia, as well?
If you’ve been a long time follower of this blog (or even not that long), you’re familiar with the thought leader interview series we conduct every year at LegalTech New York (LTNY). Now, you can listen to podcasts from a couple of eDiscovery thought leaders from the comfort of your own computer!
A couple of years ago, after my annual LegalTech New York interviews with various eDiscovery thought leaders, I wrote a post about some of the perceived myths that exist regarding Technology Assisted Review (TAR) and what it means to the review process. After a recent discussion with a client where their misperceptions regarding TAR were evident, it seemed appropriate to revisit this topic and debunk a few myths that others may believe as well.
In United States v. Louisiana, Louisiana Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., after reviewing 40 documents provided by the defendant for in-camera review, granted the plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel a Proper Privilege Log, after denying the original motion because the plaintiff only provided 13 examples of "insufficient descriptions" within the privilege log's entries.
A few years ago, we covered a case law decision in the Delta/Air Tran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litigation, where Delta was ordered to pay plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs for eDiscovery issues in that litigation. Apparently, Delta’s difficulties in this case have continued, as they have been ordered this week to pay over $2.7 million in sanctions for failing to turn over ESI, to go along with more than $4.7 million in sanctions for earlier discovery violations.
As we’ve discussed previously, stolen health records are worth a lot in the black market and that was underscored when health insurance provider Anthem announced in early February that it had suffered what appears to be the largest breach ever in the health insurance industry, affecting about 80 million people. Now, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released a draft guide that might help, at least with regard to securing electronic health record on mobile devices.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog