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.
In April, we covered a benchmarking study of eDiscovery Practices for Government Agencies conducted by Deloitte – their seventh annual such study. You don’t have to wait a whole year for an update – their Eighth Annual Benchmarking Study of Electronic Discovery Practices for Government Agencies is available now.
When you’ve worked in litigation support and eDiscovery as long as some of us have, you just think a little bit differently – even when it comes to naming files and folders on your computer. In her excellent Litigation Support Guru blog, Amy Bowser-Rollins provides some best practices to think more like a litigation support person.
Yesterday, we discussed a new self-assessment test that enables organizations to measure their eDiscovery “maturity”. Today, we look at a new survey of corporate counsel from BDO Consulting that shows that they feel there is substantial room for improvement when evaluating their organizations' effectiveness in managing eDiscovery.
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.
If you have worked in litigation support for a number of years like I have, you start to assemble a toolkit of applications that help you get your job done more quickly and efficiently. In her excellent Litigation Support Guru blog, Amy Bowser-Rollins has recently published a series of posts that describe tools of the trade that she recommends to litigation support “newbies”. Let’s take a look.
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.
There’s a common mistake that organizations make when collecting their own files to turn over for discovery purposes. Many attorneys turn over the collection of potentially responsive files to the individual custodians of those files, or to someone in the organization responsible for collecting those files (typically, an IT person) and the self-collection involves “self-culling” through the use of search terms. When this happens, important files can be missed.
When many eDiscovery professionals talk about their clients, they’re usually talking about law firms and corporations. However, government agencies have their own eDiscovery challenges. According to findings from Deloitte’s 7th Annual Benchmarking Study of e-Discovery Practices for Government Agencies, attorneys and other professionals in government agencies have their own problems and concerns when it comes to eDiscovery.
About a month after assuming my role as head of eDiscovery for one of the world’s largest biopharmaceutical companies, I was suddenly forced to change eDiscovery vendors. The experience forcefully taught me the importance of carefully choosing an eDiscovery vendor. Here are some lessons I learned from the experience.
Last week, I told you about a two-day program being hosted next week in my hometown of Houston by The Sedona Conference®. Then, on Tuesday, I told you about the Second Annual Electronic Discovery Conference for the Small and Medium Case, hosted by the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida and EDRM also next week. Now, here is another conference alternative for next week – the Third Annual ASU-Arkfeld eDiscovery and Digital Evidence Conference, hosted by Arizona State University and noted eDiscovery expert Michael Arkfeld.
Today’s thought leader is Tom Gelbmann. Tom is Principal of Gelbmann & Associates, LLC. Since 1993, Gelbmann & Associates, LLC, is a consulting practice serving the legal services industry. Tom has an extensive record of working with law firms, corporate counsel and legal services providers as a consultant, advisor, project manager, and has also held the CIO position at two major law firms. Tom has also been co-author of the leading survey on the electronic discovery market, The Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey; in 2011 he and George Socha converted the Survey into Apersee, an online system for selecting eDiscovery providers and their offerings. In 2005, he and George Socha 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.
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result”. To avoid that issue, experienced project managers know the value of conducting a “post-mortem” to discuss any problems encountered during the project and how to avoid repeating them in the future. But, what if you could prevent them from happening in the first place?
Do you know what container files are? How about the L600 Code Series? Do you know common methods for culling data? What about the difference between a targeted and non-targeted collection strategy? If you don’t know the answer to these and many other questions related to eDiscovery, you should check out the latest deliverable from the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) Metrics team, the EDRM Metrics Glossary.
The Rule 26(f) "meet and confer" conference is a requirement in Federal cases as of the rules changes of 2006 to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It enables the parties in a lawsuit to discuss discovery and create a plan for the sharing of information during and before trial. But, what if you can’t agree on how discovery should be handled? Considering using an “eMediator”!
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.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog