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.
When a case is filed, several activities must be completed within a short period of time (often as soon as the first seven to ten days after filing) to enable you to assess the scope of the case, where the key electronically stored information (ESI) is located and whether to proceed with the case or attempt to settle with opposing counsel. Here are several of the key early activities that can assist in deciding whether to litigate or settle the case.
When litigation hits, key activities to get a jump on the case include creating a list of key employees most likely to have documents relevant to the litigation and interviewing those key employees, as well as key department representatives, such as IT for information about retention and destruction policies. These steps are especially important as they may shed light on custodians you might not think about – the departed.
A new self-assessment resource from EDRM helps you answer that question. A few days ago, EDRM announced the release of the EDRM eDiscovery Maturity Self-Assessment Test (eMSAT-1), the “first self-assessment resource to help organizations measure their eDiscovery maturity”. Find out more about it here.
When we launched nearly four years ago on September 20, 2010, our goal was to be a daily resource for eDiscovery news and analysis. Now, after doing so each business day, I’m happy to announce that today is our 1,000th post on eDiscovery Daily! Check out what we've covered over 1,000 posts!
As they announced last week, the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) announced the reintroduction and refinement of its Privacy & Security Risk Reduction Model (PSRRM). Initially introduced last September by EDRM’s Data Set group (and covered on this blog here), the model provides a process for reducing the volume of private, protected and risky data by using a series of steps applied in sequence as part of the information management, identification, preservation and collection phases of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model.
In Brown v. West Corp., the plaintiff filed a motion to compel, claiming the defendant had been insufficient in its handling of searching for Electronically Stored Information (ESI) relevant to discovery. The plaintiff additionally contested a prior order from a magistrate judge, requiring the defendant to explain its search processes to the defendant. Ultimately, Nebraska Senior District Judge Lyle E. Strom denied the requested sanctions and rejected the challenge to the prior order.
A recent post in the Law Librarians Blog illustrates not only the different ways in which personal data can be captured, but also the continued growth of devices that might contain that data.
The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) has become the standard model for the workflow of the process for handling electronically stored information (ESI) in discovery. But, to succeed in discovery, regardless whether you’re the producing party or the receiving party, it might be helpful to think about the EDRM model backwards.
Since the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) annual meeting just four short months ago in May, several EDRM projects (Metrics, Jobs, Data Set and the new Native Files project) have already announced new deliverables and/or requested feedback. Now, the Data Set project has announced another new deliverable – a new Privacy Risk Reduction Model.
We’ve always been free, now we are three! It’s hard to believe that it has been three years ago today since we launched the eDiscoveryDaily blog. We’re past the “terrible twos” and heading towards pre-school. Before you know it, we’ll be ready to take our driver’s test! Here are some posts over the last six months you may have missed.
Yesterday, we discussed some general observations from the Annual Meeting for the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) group and discussed some significant efforts and accomplishments by the (suddenly heavily talked about) EDRM Data Set project. Here are some updates from other projects within EDRM.
The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) Project was created in May 2005 by George Socha of Socha Consulting LLC and Tom Gelbmann of Gelbmann & Associates to address the lack of standards and guidelines in the electronic discovery market. Now, beginning its ninth year of operation with its annual meeting in St. Paul, MN, EDRM is accomplishing more than ever to address those needs. Here are some highlights from the meeting, and an update regarding the (suddenly heavily talked about) EDRM Data Set project.
Thirty months ago yesterday, eDiscovery Daily was launched. It’s hard to believe that it has been 2 1/2 years since our first three posts that debuted on our first day. 635 posts later, a lot has happened in the industry that we’ve covered. And, yes we’re still crazy after all these years for committing to a daily post each business day, but we still haven’t missed a business day yet. Twice a year, we like to take a look back at some of the important stories and topics during that time. So, here are just a few of the posts over the last six months you may have missed. Enjoy!
In the last couple of posts in this series we covered the first phases of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model – Information Management, Identification and Preservation – and we focused on these tasks from the perspective of the litigators. The next two phases – Collection and Processing – are technical in nature and typically not handled directly by attorneys (attorneys should, however, be involved in making decisions regarding how this work will be done and in monitoring the status of this work).
In an earlier post in this series, we talked about the vehicles of discovery – that is, the mechanisms by which parties exchange information. One of the mechanisms we discussed is Document Production, which is the exchange of relevant documents between the parties. This step is usually the most time-consuming and expensive part of discovery. In fact, it’s often the most time-consuming and expensive part of a lawsuit. It has always been a significant task, but since eDiscovery has come into the picture, it has grown by magnitudes.
It’s hard to believe that it has been two years ago today since we launched the eDiscoveryDaily blog. Now that we’ve hit the “terrible twos”, is the blog going to start going off on rants about various eDiscovery topics, like Will McAvoy in The Newsroom? Maybe. Or maybe not. Wouldn’t that be fun! Here are some highlights from the past six months.
This blog series is aimed at helping you to move into an eDiscovery consultant role in a law firm. We’ve covered the advantages to doing so, transitioning into a consulting role, and tips for being an effective consultant. In the last posts in the series, I’m going to discuss opportunities to provide consulting services in a typical case. And, I’ll use the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) as a guide through potential consulting tasks.
One thing about being a daily blog is that the posts accumulate more quickly. As a result, I’m happy to announce that today is our 500th post on eDiscoveryDaily! In less than two years of existence! So, what have we covered over the first 499 posts?
So, you’re facing litigation and you need help from an outside provider to “get your ducks in a row” to understand how much data you have, how many documents have hits on key terms and estimate the costs to process, review and produce the data so that you’re in the best position to negotiate appropriate terms at the Rule 26(f) conference (aka, meet and confer). But, how much does it cost to do all that? It shouldn’t be expensive. In fact, it could even be free.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog