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.
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”.
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!
Unless limited by law or court order, a lawyer may review a juror’s or potential juror’s Internet presence, which may include postings by the juror or potential juror in advance of and during a trial, but a lawyer may not communicate directly or through another with a juror or potential juror. So says a new formal opinion from the American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on Ethics and Professionalism.
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.
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.
During deliberation, a jury attempts to reach a verdict – that is, its decision on the facts in the case and its decision in favor of one of the parties. In Federal cases – both criminal cases and civil cases -- jury verdicts must be unanimous. In state cases, the rules vary a bit. Also, here are several reasons why a trial can be declared as a mistrial.
After each side in a lawsuit has presented its case – that is, each has called all of its witnesses and presented all its evidence – the trial is nearing an end. The next step is closing arguments. Each side has a last chance to persuade the jury to deliver the verdict it wants.
In the last several posts, we’ve discussed presenting a case at trial. We’ve spent a bit of time on testimony -- a key type of evidence. In addition to testimony, attorneys introduce exhibits as evidence. Exhibits are documents or objects that support a party’s position. Here are the types of exhibits most often introduced at trial.
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 last week’s post, we covered the process by which testimony is given at trial, and how objections are made and ruled on. There are two other aspects of testimony that we’ll cover here, hearsay and leading questions.
In last week’s post we covered the different types of witnesses that can be called upon to testify at trial. Regardless of what type of witness is brought to the stand, the process for testifying is the same. Here are the steps.
After each side makes an opening statement, the main part of the trial begins -- each side presents its side of the case to the jury and/or the judge. The plaintiff goes first, followed by the defendant. Witness testimony is a form of evidence that is usually very significant in most trials. There are a few types of witnesses that might testify in a trial.
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.
Last week, we discussed the benefits of requesting document productions in native format, including the ability to use Early Data Assessment/FirstPass Review applications to analyze your opponents produced data and metadata, using capabilities like email analytics and message thread analysis (where missing emails in threads can be identified), synonym searching, fuzzy searching and domain categorization. If you don’t understand the benefits of receiving the underlying metadata, try reviewing an image of an Excel spreadsheet and see if you can understand how the numbers were calculated without the underlying formulas. Not so easy, is it? However, one objection that attorneys provide against producing documents in native format is that they’re not conducive to Bates labeling.
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.
The last post in this series on eDiscovery consulting in a law firm started discussion of opportunities to provide consulting services in a typical case (using the Electronic Discovery Reference Model as a guide). This post provides a continuation of that discussion, starting with the Review step.
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?
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog