A little over a week ago, we talked about how critical the first seven to ten days are in the case once 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 ones who aren’t there.
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.
Repeatedly referring to the defendant’s unreliability and untrustworthiness in discovery and “desire to suppress the truth,” Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart found, in Peter Kiewit Sons’, Inc. v. Wall Street Equity Group, Inc., that the defendant avoided responding substantively to the plaintiff’s discovery requests through a pattern of destruction and misrepresentation and therefore monetary sanctions and an adverse jury instruction at trial were appropriate.
Yesterday, we discussed a couple of cases within a month’s time where the New York Appellate Division has embraced the federal standards of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 FRD 212. Those of us who have been involved in litigation support and discovery management for years are fully aware of the significance of the Zubulake case and its huge impact on discovery of electronic data. Even if you haven’t been in the industry for several years, you’ve probably heard of the case and understand that it’s a significant case. But, do you understand just how many groundbreaking opinions resulted from that case? For those who aren’t aware, let’s take a look back.
Most of the “press” associated with eDiscovery ranges from the “left side of the EDRM model” (i.e., Information Management, Identification, Preservation, Collection) through the stages to prepare materials for production (i.e., Processing, Review and Analysis). All of those phases lead to one inevitable stage in eDiscovery: Production. Yet, few people talk about the actual production step. If Preservation, Collection and Review are the “John”, “Paul” and “George” of the eDiscovery process, Production is “Ringo”.
Whether you’re a college football fan or not, chances are you’ve heard about the scandal associated with the allegations of serial child abuse by former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky. There seems to be new developments almost daily and the scandal has already cost the jobs of the university president, vice president, athletic director and the head football coach, Joe Paterno, who had been head coach since 1965 and on the coaching staff since 1950 (most of us weren’t even born yet!). Numerous lawsuits seem highly likely to arise as a result of the alleged abuse against a variety of defendants, including the university, individuals alleged to be involved in the abuse and cover-up and also the Second Mile Foundation founded by Sandusky.
Some time ago, we talked about the importance of preparing a data map of your organization’s data to be ready when litigation strikes. The data map itself doesn’t have to be complicated. It can be as simple as a spreadsheet (or series of spreadsheets, one for each department or custodian, depending on what level of information is likely to be requested). Here are examples of types of information that you might see in a typical data map spreadsheet.
As noted a few months ago, Forrester and Gartner have predicted big growth for the cloud computing industry, with Forrester predicting nearly a six-fold growth in nine years. In eDiscovery, these solutions support every phase of the EDRM life cycle, from Identification to Presentation. Earlier this week, the New York Times published an article entitled Tight Budget? Look to the ‘Cloud’, written by Vivek Kundra, the Obama administration’s chief information officer from 2009 until earlier this month, who discussed some significant cost savings within government agencies from shifting to cloud based solutions.
The past two days, we discussed the basics of the Rule 26(f) “meet and confer” conference and details regarding the topics to discuss during that conference. Hopefully, you found that review informative. Now, as noted in a recent Law Technology News article by Sean Doherty, there’s a web application to facilitate the process to prepare for and conduct the Rule 26(f) conference.
Yesterday, we talked about the basics of the Rule 26(f) “meet and confer” conference, Today, let’s go into more detail about the topics that are typically covered during the “meet and confer”, and why. The "meet and confer" conference focuses on the exchange of information regarding discovery and the creation of a comprehensive plan that will govern the sharing and privilege of ESI. Accordingly, the requirements of this meeting specify discussion of the following topics...
Almost any litigation professional who works with eDiscovery is aware of the Rule 26(f) "meet and confer" conference, but many don't fully understand its parameters and how it affects ESI. What exactly is the "meet and confer" and what are some of its implications in regard to eDiscovery?
The North Dakota District Court has recently decided in favor of a motion to compel production of electronic evidence, requiring imaging of computer hard drives, in a case involving the possible electronic theft of trade secrets.
I found this article in the CIO Central blog on Forbes.com from Robert D. Brownstone – it’s a good summary of issues for organizations to consider so that they can avoid major eDiscovery nightmares. The author counts down his top ten list David Letterman style (clever!) to provide a nice easy to follow summary of the issues. Here’s a summary recap, with my ‘two cents’ on each item.
A few months ago at LegalTech New York, I conducted a thought leader interview with Tom O’Connor of Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center, who didn’t exactly mince words when talking about the trend for attorneys to “finally tak[e] technology seriously”. As he noted, “lawyers are finally trying to take some time to try to get up to speed – whining and screaming pitifully all the way about how it’s not fair, and the sanctions are too high and there’s too much data. Get a life, get a grip. Use the tools that are out there that have been given to you for years. The ethical responsibilities of counsel these days includes competently directing and managing eDiscovery.”
No, eDiscoveryDaily has not begun providing weather forecasts on our site. Or stock forecasts. But, imagine if you could invest in an industry that could nearly sextuple in nine years? (i.e., multiply six-fold). Well, the cloud computing, or Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), industry may be just the industry for you. According to a Forrester report from last month, the global cloud computing market will grow from 40.7 billion dollars in 2011 to more than 241 billion dollars by 2020. That’s a 200 billion dollar increase in nine years. That’s enough to put anybody “on cloud nine”!
Law firms and corporations alike tend to keep data storage devices well beyond what their compliance requirements or business needs actually dictate. These so-called “skeletons in the closet” pose a major problem when the entity gets sued or subpoenaed. All that dusty data is suddenly potentially discoverable. Legal counsel can be proactive and initiate responsible handling of this legacy data by defining a new, defensible information governance process.
I read an interesting article from Texas Lawyer via Law.com entitled “4 Steps to Effective E-Discovery With Software Analytics” that has some interesting takes on project management principles related to eDiscovery and I’ve interjected some of my thoughts into the analysis below. The steps are as follows.
Today’s thought leader is George Socha. A litigator for 16 years, George is President of Socha Consulting LLC, offering services as an electronic discovery expert witness, special master and advisor to corporations, law firms and their clients, and legal vertical market software and service providers in the areas of electronic discovery and automated litigation support. George has also been co-author of the leading survey on the electronic discovery market, The Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey. In 2005, he and Tom Gelbmann launched the Electronic Discovery Reference Model project to establish standards within the eDiscovery industry – today, the EDRM model has become a standard in the industry for the eDiscovery life cycle and there are eight active projects with over 300 members from 81 participating organizations. George has a J.D. for Cornell Law School and a B.A. from the University of Wisconsin – Madison.
Today’s thought leader is Jim McGann. Jim is Vice President of Information Discovery at Index Engines. Jim has extensive experience with the eDiscovery and Information Management in the Fortune 2000 sector. He has worked for leading software firms, including Information Builders and the French-based engineering software provider Dassault Systemes. In recent years he has worked for technology-based start-ups that provided financial services and information management solutions.
Today’s thought leader is Alon Israely. Alon is a Senior Advisor in BIA’s Advisory Services group and when he’s not advising clients on e-discovery issues he works closely with BIA’s product development group for its core technology products. Alon has over fifteen years of experience in a variety of advanced computing-related technologies and has consulted with law firms and their clients on a variety of technology issues, including expert witness services related to computer forensics, digital evidence management and data security.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog