In Hyles v. New York City, New York Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck, indicating that the key issue before the court in the discovery dispute between parties was whether (at the plaintiff’s request) the defendants can be forced to use technology assisted review, refused to force the defendant to do so, stating “The short answer is a decisive ‘NO.’”
In Waters v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Kansas Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale granted the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to produce account information associated with his social media accounts as well as postings from the dates he missed work in conjunction with his injury claims against the defendant. Judge Gale also granted most of the components of the plaintiff’s motion to compel against the defendant for various discovery requests.
We’ve covered two rounds of the quarterly eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey created by Rob Robinson and conducted on his terrific Complex Discovery site (previous results are here and here). It’s time for the Summer 2016 Survey. Befitting of the season, the survey has a HOT new affiliation with the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists (ACEDS).
If you missed our panel session last month in New York City at The Masters Conference, you missed a terrific discussion about automation in eDiscovery and, particularly an in-depth discussion about technology assisted review (TAR) and whether it lives up to the current hype. Now, you get another chance to check it out, thanks to ACEDS.
We’ve covered the growth of cloud adoption several times, especially in eDiscovery, including here and here. However, according to a new survey from Ponemon, organizations apparently aren’t adopting appropriate governance and security measures to protect sensitive data in the cloud.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog