One of the most discussed topics at LegalTech® New York 2015 (LTNY) earlier this year was cybersecurity. We’ve started covering some of the trends related to security breaches with posts here, here and here and even my hometown baseball team, the Houston Astros, was recently hacked by a competitor. The latest victims of cyber hacking – the purported 37 million subscribers of the online cheating site AshleyMadison.com – may find little sympathy in their plight.
In Giuliani v. Springfield Township, et al., Pennsylvania District Judge Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr. denied the plaintiffs' motion for spoliation sanctions, finding that the duty to preserve began when the case was filed and finding that “plaintiffs have not shown that defendants had any ill motive or bad intent in failing to retain the documents which plaintiffs seek”.
Friday, we wrote about tracking file counts from collection to production, the concept of expanded file counts, and the categorization of files during processing. Today, let’s walk through a scenario to show how the files collected are accounted for during the discovery process.
A while back, we wrote about Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) in the eDiscovery process. Both are important in improving the quality of work product and making the eDiscovery process more defensible overall. With regard to QC, an overall QC mechanism is tracking of document counts through the discovery process, especially from collection to production, to identify how every collected file was handled and why each non-produced document was not produced.
A month ago, we discussed the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (DESI) workshop and the papers describing research or practice presented at the workshop that was held earlier this month and we covered one of those papers a couple of weeks later. Today, let’s cover another paper from the study.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog