In Pick v. City of Remsen, Iowa District Judge Mark W. Bennett upheld the magistrate judge’s order directing the destruction of an inadvertently-produced privileged document, an email from defense counsel to some of the defendants, after affirming the magistrate judge’s analysis of the five-step analysis to determine whether privilege was waived.
In my hometown of Houston, attempting to deny coverage to a client successfully sued for discovery-related negligence cost OneBeacon Insurance Company a $34 million judgment by a federal jury.
In Freedman v. Weatherford Int’l, New York Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV denied the plaintiff’s request to, among other things, require the defendant to produce “certain reports comparing the electronic search results from discovery in this action to the results from prior searches” – despite the fact that the plaintiff identified 18 emails that the defendant did not produce that were ultimately produced by a third party.
Recently, we at CloudNine Discovery received a set of Adobe PDF files from a client that raised an issue regarding the handling of those files for searching and reviewing purposes. The issue serves as a cautionary tale for those working with image-only PDFs in their document collection. Here’s a recap of the issue.
In Price Waicukauski & Riley v. Murray, Indiana District Judge William T. Lawrence granted the plaintiff’s request for summary judgment for failure to pay attorney’s fees of over $125,000, and refused to issue summary judgment for either party related to a legal malpractice claim for the plaintiff’s admitted failure to review documents produced in the defendants’ case against another party because of a factual dispute regarding the plaintiff’s knowledge of the documents produced.
In Melian Labs, Inc. v. Triology LLC, California Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery in native form because the production format had been agreed upon under the parties’ ESI protocol under the Joint Rule 26(f) Report filed by the parties that supported production in “paper, PDF, or TIFF format”.
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.
Yesterday, we talked about addressing parameters of production up front to ensure that those requirements make sense and avoid foreseeable production problems well before the production step. Today, we will talk about quality control (QC) mechanisms to make sure that the production is complete and accurate. There are a number of checks that can and should be performed on the production set, prior to producing it to the requesting party. Here are some examples.
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”.
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!
I love Paul Simon’s music. One of my favorite songs of his is Mother and Child Reunion. Of course, I’m such an eDiscovery nerd that every time I think of that song, I think of keeping email and attachment families together. If you don’t remember the Mother and Child Reunion, you might provide an incomplete production to opposing counsel.
We’ve referenced Ralph Losey’s excellent e-Discovery Team® blog several times before on this blog – it’s a great read and you won’t find a blog that gets more in depth than his does (he has also been gracious enough to participate in our thought leader interview series for the last three years). And, as Ralph has demonstrated before, he has a sense of humor when it comes to electronic discovery.
Yesterday, we began to discuss some of the production parameters that CloudNine Discovery collects from our clients in order to ensure that the production includes the correct documents in the required format. But, wait – there’s more! Let’s take a look at some other examples of information we collect from our clients.
We sometimes forget that the end goal of the discovery process is production: to produce responsive electronically stored information (ESI) to opposing counsel. But, do you realize how many parameters and potential permutations there can be to the production process? Let’s take a look.
In Kyko Global Inc. v. Prithvi Info. Solutions Ltd., Washington Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman ruled that the defendants’ did not waive their attorney-client privilege on the computer of one of the defendants purchased by plaintiffs at public auction, denied the defendants’ motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s counsel for purchasing the computer and ordered the plaintiffs to provide defendants with a copy of the hard drive within three days for the defendants to review it for privilege and provide defendants with a privilege log within seven days of the transfer.
In Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, the Supreme Court of Texas determined “that imposition of the severe sanction of a spoliation instruction was an abuse of discretion” in the trial court, reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.
In Brown v. Tellermate Holdings, Magistrate Judge Terence Kemp granted plaintiffs’ motion for judgment and motion to strike, ruling that the defendant could not “present or rely upon evidence that it terminated the Browns' employment for performance-related reasons” and enabling the plaintiffs to use documents produced by the defendant “designated as attorneys'-eyes-only” to be used by the plaintiffs “without restriction”, due to the defendant’s failure to preserve or produce data from their Salesforce.com database.
Over the past couple of weeks, we’ve taken a fresh look at Twitter’s Law Enforcement Policies and their latest Transparency Report to show government requests for data, looked at (for the first time) LinkedIn’s Privacy and Law Enforcement Data Request Guidelines and Transparency Report and, yesterday, looked at Facebook’s policies and Government Request Reports. Today, we will look at Transparency Reports for other companies.
Two weeks ago, we took a fresh look at Twitter’s Law Enforcement Policies and their latest Transparency Report to show government requests for data, then last week (for the first time), we looked at LinkedIn’s Privacy and Law Enforcement Data Request Guidelines and Transparency Report. This week, we’ll take a look at Facebook’s policies and Government Request Reports.
Yesterday, we talked about LinkedIn’s Privacy and Law Enforcement Data Request Guidelines. Like Twitter and other social media companies, LinkedIn also discloses a semi-annual Transparency Report to inform the public of the frequency and type of government requests the company receives regarding member data. Let’s take a look.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog