Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Useful eDiscovery Information Resources: Evaluating Products and Services

This blog series – Useful eDiscovery Information Resources – is aimed at giving you information on resources available to eDiscovery professionals… resources aimed at education regarding eDiscovery and resources aimed at keeping professionals up to date regarding the latest and the greatest in the industry.  The first posts in the series can be found here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

_______________________________________________

For quality and efficiency purposes, most law firms and corporate law departments standardize on an approach to eDiscovery:

  • They create best practices for how eDiscovery will be handled.
  • They create guidelines for what tasks and volumes of materials will be handled in-house and what will get out-sourced to a service provider.
  • They standardize on a limited number of in-house tools that they’ll use for processing and reviewing eDiscovery.
  • They create a short list of approved online review tools that they’ll use when in-house resources aren’t sufficient for a project.
  • They’ll create a short list of approved service providers that they’ll use for various eDiscovery and litigation support services.

Selecting in-house tools to purchase and creating these service and product “approved lists” is not an easy task.  Done properly, it can take a lot of time.  And it’s not a one-time thing.  Products and service providers need to be routinely reviewed to ensure that they continue to be a good fit, and new technology and service providers should be evaluated.

As a first step, you need to ensure you really understand what the firm needs and wants, and you also need an understanding of the firm’s culture and its clients.  You need to have a good handle on the size of the cases handled by the firm, what attorneys expect of a product or a service, and what selection criteria is most important to the firm (is it price? Quality? Turn-around time?).  And of course, in this initial step, you may find that you have to educate yourself about emerging technology, and likewise educate the attorneys in your firm so that they make the right decisions regarding needs and wants.

Once you’ve got your selection guidelines in place, there’s the tedious task of evaluating and selecting the right products and the right service providers for your organization. You’ll rely on your own experience.  You’ll contact peers in the industry and get opinions from them.  You may post questions on the various internet forums to which you belong.

There are also a couple of web services that can help you here:

  • Apersee:  Developed by George Socha & Tom Gelbmann (the guys behind the Socha-Gelbmann Electrionic Discovery Survey and the EDRM), Apersee is a system for selecting e-discovery providers and products. This statement from the website’s About page best summarizes how it works: “The Apersee Selection Engine allows consumers to choose the criteria that matter most to them, assign priorities to those critera, evaluate the results, and modify their searches… “  Click here for more information on Apersee.
  • eDJ Matrix:  Created by eDJ Group Co-Founder Greg Buckles, the eDJ Matrix is an interactive, dynamic tool that provides information on and evaluations of eDiscovery solutions – both products and services. Click here for more information on the eDJGroup and the eDJ Matrix.

These resources can save you a lot of time – the folks behind these tools have done a lot of the leg-work for you. These tools can really help to narrow down the product and service provider candidates that are a good match for your firm.

I’ll be back next week with the next post in this resources blog series.  In the meantime, let us know if there are specific topics you’d like us to cover.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

What to Do BEFORE Your Laptop is Stolen – eDiscovery Best Practices

One of the earliest blog posts I ever wrote for this blog was regarding the myth of SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) security finally being busted and that SaaS data is much more difficult to steal than desktop application data, which “could be one stolen laptop away from being compromised”.  A little over three years later, I got to experience that scenario first-hand.

Last week, while stopping at a restaurant to wait out a flight delay to LegalTech New York (LTNY), my laptop was stolen.  Our bags were in my boss’s truck, a mere 12 feet away from the entrance to the restaurant, just around the corner.  The thieves knocked out the passenger side lock and (evidently) took the bags that they could carry, which was my two co-workers’ garment bags, my laptop and my boss’s travel laptop.  Apparently, my garment bags weren’t worthy enough to steal.  Not sure if that says anything about my wardrobe or not.  Hmmm…

Naturally, the restaurant didn’t have security cameras.  And, I never normally leave my laptop in a car.  The one time…

Anyway, no matter how secure your laptop is, when it’s stolen, you spend the next couple of hours changing every online password you can think of.  I changed eighteen of them.  I had unfortunately left a checkbook in my laptop bag, so I also had to call my bank and get some checks canceled.  The laptop itself had good laptop authentication security and I also use a strong password (which I’ve now changed, hah!), so it will be very difficult for the thieves to gain access to my data.

None of that data was client data as we keep that on a secured server which I access directly when in the office and via Sonicwall Virtual Private Network (VPN) when I’m out of the office.  Most of the data was previously written blog posts, some generic test data (Enron, anybody?) and various marketing materials or downloaded articles.

Nonetheless, losing that data would be inconvenient, so I’m a big proponent of cloud-based backups, which will back up data in the background while you’re working.  I also back up to a local external hard drive, so I’m a “belt and suspenders” backer-upper.  With a handful of exceptions (that I’ll unfortunately have to re-create) most of that data was backed up to one or both locations.

Lessons to learn: 1) Make sure to implement strong security on your laptop, with strong BIOS passwords and hard drive passwords.  Encryption and/or biometric security (through fingerprint identification) is even better.  2) Make sure your data is backed up regularly.  Cloud-based backups, like Dropbox and other services, are great because they back up data in the background so you don’t have to remember to do it.

Oh, and don’t leave your laptop in the car.  It only takes one time, as I unfortunately found out.

So, what do you think?  What measures do you use to protect your laptop data? Please share any comments you may have, or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Sanctions Awarded when Defendant Failed to Preserve Relevant Evidence – eDiscovery Case Law

In Zest IP Holdings, LLC v. Implant Direct Manufacturing, LLC., No. 10-0541-GPC(WVG), 2013 U.S. Dist. (S.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013), California Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo granted the Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions because parties are “required to preserve evidence relevant to litigation and to prevent spoliation.”  Judge Gallo found that the Defendant “failed to preserve multiple documents that are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims with the requisite culpable state of mind to support a finding of spoliation of evidence”.

The plaintiffs sought sanctions for the defendants’ alleged spoliation and other discovery abuses during this patent and trademark infringement action. The defendant was notified by letter on August 8, 2008 that it was believed the defendant’s product was an unlawful replica of the plaintiff’s product. The plaintiff sent a subsequent cease and desist letter with intentions to file suit on October 22, 2008.

Despite receiving these letters, the defendants continued manufacturing their product.  It was the defendant’s belief that because the plaintiff’s did not file their complaint until March 2010 that there was no duty on behalf of the defendant to preserve any documents, especially as the plaintiffs did not request this of the defendant. The plaintiffs requested sanctions because the defendants never instituted a litigation hold, did not take steps to preserve documents, and failed to instruct employees to preserve any documents.  Furthermore, the defendants had no backup storage system in place to prevent the destruction of documents. They initially believed e-mails were “‘automatically preserved” on a server under their control, however it was discovered that this was not the case and e-mails could be deleted.

The defendants argued that these omissions did not warrant sanctions due to their company policy, which stated that “no documents are to be deleted.”  It was further believed by the defendant that their employees would never delete any company documents. However, this contention was challenged when testimony from various employees who claimed they had, in fact, deleted e-mails. The CEO of the defendant company, Implant Direct Manufacturing, LLC, claimed in his deposition he had six e-mail accounts, however not one of the messages in these accounts were ever preserved or produced. In fact, he said he did not even bother searching these accounts for any relevant documents due to a file folder on his desktop where he saved all messages relating to the plaintiffs.

Judge Gallo found that the defendants’ duty to preserve documents began when they received the October 22, 2008 letter requesting the defendant cease and desist production of the product, as well as informing them of the plaintiffs’ intent to sue. The documents they destroyed thereafter were “highly probative” of the claims in the plaintiffs’ lawsuit and therefore the plaintiffs suffered prejudice as a result of the defendant’s actions. Additionally, the defendant failed to monitor its employees’ compliance with its so-called policy of saving all e-mails.  The defendants’ conduct, however, did “not rise to the level of bad faith sufficient to warrant default judgment under the circumstances”, but Judge Gallo found an adverse inference instruction proper under the Zubulake test.  Judge Gallo also awarded monetary sanctions because the defendants’ “negligence and their denial of spoliation of evidence caused delay and unnecessary costs that could have been avoided.”

So, what do you think?  Was Judge Gallo right to award sanctions? Please share any comments you may have, or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

‘Discovery About Discovery’ Motions Lead to Unusual Court Decision – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Ruiz-Bueno v. Scott, No. 2:12-cv-0809, 2013 U.S. Dist. (S.D. Ohio Nov. 15, 2013), a discovery dispute in this wrongful death case arose, leading Ohio Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp to arrive at the unusual decision to direct a party to provide ‘discovery about discovery.’

The dispute arose when the plaintiffs filed a second set of interrogatories. Due to concern regarding the small amount of electronically stored information (ESI) produced by the defendants during the first round of discovery, the plaintiffs sought to compel the defendants to answer two questions: “(1) what efforts they made to comply with plaintiffs’ previous discovery requests, and (2) what procedures or methods were used to search for responsive electronically stored information, or ESI.”

In response, the defendants offered a simple objection on the basis that information sought by the plaintiffs’ request was irrelevant and had “no bearing on any aspect of the case.” The defendants alleged that discovery is not a “claim or defense” in this particular case, and cited Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), which limits the proper scope of discovery to “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.”

Judge Kemp noted that not every case justifies directing council to provide discovery about discovery, but that the circumstances here required such direction, because the defendants were not “forthcoming with information needed to make further discussion of the issue a collaborative rather than contrarian process.” It was noted that the current dispute arose from the “plaintiffs’ distrust of the diligence with which defendants searched for ESI,” although it was conceded that the defendants likely believed they had “made a good faith effort to locate and produce all relevant emails.”

However, in this case the defendants had not collaborated with the plaintiffs to share information about their search protocols, other than to state that each of 50 defendants had been asked twice to produce their relevant emails. Judge Kemp noted that rather than relying on “50 different employees to search emails in some unspecified manner,” which likely resulted in searches carried out with different protocols—such as by sender, by recipient, by keyword, or by date, for example—the defendants could have instituted a controlled search that would have produce more comprehensive discovery responses.

Judge Kemp additionally noted that from personal observation and the “tenor of telephone conferences and written submissions,” it appears that there are issues in the relationship between counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the defense. It was recommended that counsel cooperate for the remainder of the discovery ahead, and for the potentially lengthy trial, in the interests of ensuring that processes are “cost-efficient for their own clients and for the Court.”

The defendants were directed to answer the plaintiffs’ interrogatories concerning ‘discovery about discovery,’ and also left with a standing order that presumes any issues remaining after the document retrieval process is satisfactorily described, will be addressed cooperatively by counsel.

So, what do you think? Should parties be permitted to compel answers concerning method of discovery in all cases when those methods are unclear? Should there be special exceptions, either for or against discovery about discovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Thursday LTNY 2014 Sessions – eDiscovery Trends

As noted Tuesday and yesterday, LegalTech® New York 2014 (LTNY) is happening this week.  Today is the last day to check out the show if you’re in the cold and snowy New York area with a number of sessions (both paid and free) available and over 218 exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

Perform a “find” on today’s LTNY conference schedule for “discovery” or “information governance” and you’ll get 41 hits.  More eDiscovery sessions still happening!  Here are some of the sessions in the main conference tracks:

10:30 – 11:45 AM:

The Changing of the Guard- How Cutting Edge Corporate Legal Departments Are Reinventing In-House eDiscovery

Nowhere is eDiscovery evolving more quickly than behind the scenes of some of the world’s most savvy enterprises. In this session, hear how cutting edge corporate legal teams have turned the tables on traditional eDiscovery approaches, effectively rewriting best practices for 2014 and beyond. Our panel of experts will discuss:

  • What are ways to significantly reduce legal spend and improve outcomes when managing eDiscovery
  • Why hybrid deployment models are quickly surpassing traditional, on premise only approaches
  • What are ways to revolutionize the communications patterns with outside counsel
  • What are the ROI metrics that really move the ball for forward thinking corporations

Speakers are: Dean Gonsowski, Vice President, Business Development and Head of Global Information Governance, Recommind; Marla Bergman, Goldman Sachs; Meghan Landrum, Google; Cliff Dutton, AIG.

Rightsizing Your Program to Get Funding and Succeed

Enterprise Information Governance programs are often as complex as the problems they are intended to solve, incorporating governance needs and requirements of a multitude of internal and external stakeholders while beholden to industry requirements and tight budgets. In this session, our panel of seasoned experts will help prepare attendees with best practices for breaking down the Information Governance equation in their or their clients’ organizations in order to kick-start an IG program. Topics to be explored include:

  • Assessing current realities to gain an understanding of what information-based threats and opportunities exist
  • Prioritizing threats and opportunities by evaluating risk/reward and estimating remediation ROI, including defensible deletion
  • Achieving cross-stakeholder support for development of an Information Governance framework and program

Panelists are: Julie J. Colgan, Director of Information Governance Solutions, Nuix; Galina Datskovsky, Independent Information Governance Consultant; Jason R. Baron, Of Counsel, Drinker Biddle & Reath; Dan Regard, Managing Director, iDiscovery Solutions; Susan Goodman, MLS, CRM, IGP, CIP, CIPP/US, Director, Records and Information Management (RIM), Consumer Reports.  Moderator: Barclay Blair, President and Founder, ViaLumina.

The TAR Workroom

Now that the industry has more TAR case history and experience to draw upon, workflow guidelines are emerging as well.  This panel will guide participants through a working session examining the lifecycle of a TAR project, including:

  • planning for a TAR project
  • establishing statistical goals based on selected TAR objectives
  • defining the TAR project team’s roles and responsibilities
  • evaluating TAR training options
  • devising QC strategies
  • assessing TAR results
  • deciding optimal pathways for strategic utilization of TAR results
  • documenting the project to ensure defensibility and replicability

Participants will emerge with an understanding of what it takes to plan and implement a successful TAR project.

Panelists are: Mira Edelman, Discovery Counsel, Google; Bennett Borden, Partner and Co-Chair of the Information Governance and eDiscovery Group, Drinker Biddle & Reath; Stuart LaRosa, Senior Search Consultant, Xerox; Julie Brown, Litigation Technology Executive Manager, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease.  Moderator: Shelia Mackay, Vice President, Consulting, Xerox.

Transforming Discovery Through the Optimization of Legal Intelligencee

Accurately identifying potentially relevant documents in discovery is often described as finding needles in a haystack.  With data growing exponentially, legal counsel is struggling to control the size of the haystack.  However, they can now effectively identify where the needles reside earlier in the process with greater accuracy than ever.   By combining technology and analytical expertise, it is now possible to gather early stage legal intelligence to develop case strategy and efficiently zero in on the needles in mountain of hay.

Speakers are: Dave Deppe, President, UnitedLex; Christine Hasiotis; Senior Counsel & GE Legal Support Solutions Leader, Electric Insurance Company; Jason Yurasek, Litigation Partner, Perkins Cole; Mark McGrath; Associate, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP; Jack Halprin, Head of eDiscovery, Enterprise, Google; Farrah Pepper, Executive Counsel – Discovery, General Electric Company.

12:15 – 1:30 PM:

The rise of the machines? How computers can amplify human intelligence, not replace it.

Since the dawn of time, the ability to make, use and refine tools and machines has helped define and advance the human race. Now more than ever, assistance from technology is paramount in our world. We see and interact with it every day, from our smart phones and tablets to our vehicles and homes. This assistance is equally as important in our industry, with data volumes and client expectations growing at an exponential rate; humans alone can’t keep up.  In this session, you will learn about the different techniques and approaches for assistive technology and how it applies to eDiscovery including:

  • Artificial Intelligence vs. Amplifying Human Intelligence
  • How Human-Machine symbiosis is the next generation of assistive technology
  • The key differences between TAR, CAR, and Predictive Coding
  • How to successfully apply utilize this capability in eDiscovery

Speakers are: Neil Etheridge, Recommind; Patrick Oot, Electronic Discovery Institute; Daniel Lim, Former VP & Deputy G, Guidance Software, Inc.

TAR Ethics Lab – ABA & State Ethics Rules

This program addresses the ethical and legal consequences of using TAR in the context of a shifting landscape of governing rules. Through this interactive lab, participants will become better prepared to meet their ethical and legal obligations and help their clients contain ever-mounting e-discovery costs.

Last year, the American Bar Association (ABA) approved an important new resolution under the duty of competence (Model Rule 1.1) that requires lawyers to “keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology …”  Amendments to rules on communications with clients (Model Rule 1.4), confidentiality (Model Rule 1.6), and supervision (Model Rule 5.3) also impact the use of TAR.  Various state ethics rules have since followed.

In addition, significant changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding e-discovery have been drafted, but the debate continues under Congressional review before any changes go into effect near the end of 2015.

This panel will guide participants through real-life TAR scenarios that promote an understanding of the new ethical and legal landscape of e-discovery.

Panelists are: Anthony Diana, Partner, Mayer Brown; Julie Brown, Litigation Technology Executive Manager, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease.  Moderator: Gabriela P. Baron, Senior Vice President, Xerox.

In addition to these, there are other eDiscovery-related sessions today.  For a complete description for all sessions today, click here.

So, what do you think?  Have you attended LTNY this year?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to LegalTech – eDiscovery Trends

The weather spared the big game, but came back with a vengeance yesterday.  Was your flight delayed or cancelled trying to get into New York?  For us too – twice.  Oh, and our laptops were stolen while we stopped off at a restaurant to wait out yesterday’s delay.  Don’t get us started.

Anyway, hopefully the rest of you made it, despite the weather.  As noted yesterday, LegalTech® New York 2014 (LTNY) is happening this week and there’s still two more days to check out the show if you’re in the New York area with a number of sessions (both paid and free) available and over 218 exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

Perform a “find” on today’s LTNY conference schedule for “discovery” and you’ll get 53 hits.  More eDiscovery sessions happening!  Here are some of the sessions in the main conference tracks:

9:05 – 10:00 AM:

Day Two Keynote General Session Presentation – Judges Panel: Changing Rules and Best Practices in e-Discovery – Open to All

When it comes to legal technology, few names are more synonymous with the industry than those of our day two panelists. We are thrilled to welcome Judges Lee Rosenthal, Shira Scheindlin, John Facciola, James Francis and Andrew Peck to the keynote stage at LegalTech.  Never before has LegalTech had the privilege of having these five judges grace the stage at the same time.  Plan to arrive early for what promises to be the most insightful and provocative session at LegalTech 2014.

E-Discovery Special Master Craig Ball will lead the discussion, as the judges share their views on today’s legal landscape with an eye towards what the future holds.  Our e-Discovery pioneers will share their experiences and viewpoints to help attendees best prepare for the law and practice of tomorrow.

Panelists are: Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, United States District Judge, Southern District of Texas; Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin, United States District Judge, Southern District of New York; Honorable John M. Facciola, United States Magistrate Judge, District of Columbia; Honorable James C. Francis, United States Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York; Honorable Andrew J. Peck, United States Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York.  Moderator: Craig Ball, Attorney and Forensic Technologist, Certified Computer Forensic Examiner.

10:30 – 11:45 AM:

Predictive Coding and Analytics Applied on Three Common Scenarios

Analytics can help supplement predictive coding – by visually clarifying its results, accelerating review of the remaining materials, and even assisting in trial and deposition preparation. Using a case study approach, attendees will learn how to develop workflow incorporating both predictive coding and analytics for three common e-discovery scenarios.

Panelists are: Hon. Andrew J. Peck, United States Magistrate Judge,Southern District of New York; Eric Lieber, Director of Legal Technology, Toyota Motor Sales, USA; Jason Lichter, Director of Discovery Services and Litigation Support, Pepper Hamilton LLP.  Moderator: Kathryn McCarthy, Senior Managing Director,  FTI Technology.

The Evolution of Information Governance: Predictive Governance

Predictive Coding technology has already been successfully used for information Governance including defensible disposal use cases. In this session we will explore how the “train by example” iterative training process can be used to train an information governance system to categorize gigantic unstructured data set quickly and accurately and we will explore how predictive technologies can be used to create highly accurate and consistent automated information governance solutions.

Speakers are: Barclay Blair, ViaLumina; Bennett Borden, Partner and Co-Chair of the Information Governance and eDiscovery Group, Drinker Biddle & Reath; Dean Gonsowski, Vice President, Business Development and Head of Global Information Governance, Recommind.

Have we Reached a “John Henry” Moment in Evidentiary Search?

Humans have always played a large role in document review, but the advent of predictive coding raises significant questions about the role of the human reviewer in the future of ediscovery. Is there room for both human and machine in ediscovery, or are human reviewers, like the great John Henry, doomed to become irrelevant by faster, more efficient machines?

Join us as we discuss the evolving role of the human reviewer as the ediscovery community grows increasingly comfortable with technology assisted review.

Speakers are: Ralph Losey, Jackson Lewis; Cliff Dutton, AIG; Jason R. Baron, Drinker Biddle & Reath.  Moderator: Eric Robinson, Kroll Ontrack.

Discovery Insourcing v. Outsourcing – Finding the Right Balance for Your Organization

As Legal Departments continue to face significant resource constraints, identifying new ways to achieve cost savings and efficiencies can make a real impact.  These savings can often be achieved through implementing new technologies for culling and review, as well as reevaluating the internal and external discovery support model to ensure the right resources are doing the right tasks.  Creative and competitive outsourced pricing models have allowed some to get the best of both worlds – reduced risk and cost predictability combined with the latest technology and scalable resources.   Others have found success with increased insourcing often through better partnerships between Legal and IT and creating centralized functions with skilled discovery resources on hand.  This session will focus on innovative options to strike the right balance between insourcing and outsourcing to achieve high levels of cost savings.

Speakers are: Pamela M. Pearson, Managing Counsel, Wells Fargo; Constance Mockaitis, Manager, eDiscovery Legal Operations, AbbVie, Inc.; Jenya Moshkovich, Associate, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler.  Moderator: Stacie Neeter, Senior Director, Huron Legal.

12:30 – 1:30 PM:

Day Two General Session: eDiscovery without the Strings Attached: how the Cloud will Change eDiscovery in 2014 and Beyond – Open to All

Since the inception of eDiscovery, the range of technology solutions available – to help organizations address growing data volumes and rapidly respond to a legal matter – have been somewhat limited.  Options included buying and deploying software for use behind the firewall, or paying a third party to host the technology for you.  The Cloud is changing the paradigm and providing those organizations that don’t have the infrastructure and resources for an in-house solution, or that don’t have the appetite to pay additional fees to a middle man, with a third viable option.  In this session, learn how Cloud-based solutions will change the face of eDiscovery by combining control and flexibility with convenience and cost efficiency.

Panelists are: Timothy Carroll, Partner, Perkins Coie LLP; Alan M. Winchester, Partner, Harris Beach PLLC; Gareth Evans, Partner,Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.  Moderator: George Tziahanas, SVP, Legal and Compliance Solutions, HP Autonomy.

2:00 – 3:15 PM:

Advice from Counsel: One Small Step for E-Discovery, A Giant Leap for Information Governance?

For the fifth consecutive year, the Advice from Counsel survey captures the top e-discovery trends for corporate counsel of Fortune 1000 companies.  This year the survey focuses on the intersection of e-discovery and information governance. Just as common e-discovery workflow and technology can help legal teams  proactively manage data as part of a broader information governance strategy, these strategies promise to reshape e-discovery practices in the coming years. Whether in-house or outside counsel, attendees will learn how leading-edge companies are approaching information governance and how this will impact legal processes for years to come.

Panelists are: Marla Bergman, Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Goldman Sachs; Anthony Knaapen, Manager of Litigation Discovery, Chevron; Ari Kaplan, Principal, Ari Kaplan Advisors.  Moderator: Sophie Ross, Senior Managing Director, FTI Technology.

The End of Predictive Coding?

2012 was haled as the year of predictive coding. 2013 was declared to be the year of information governance. So as 2014 begins we are faced with the question of what’s next in eDiscovery? In this session we will explore how the concept of predictive coding has evolved and consider if 2014 will mark the end of predictive coding as we know it. Come to learn how the barrier between lawyer and machine is eroding and how real time interaction with advanced analytics is the next big thing in eDiscovery.

Panelists are: Steve Berrent, WilmerHale; Drew Lewis, Recommind.  Moderator: Phil Favro, Recommind.

The Ediscovery Pulse: Metrics You Need to Know

If you have been looking for benchmarks to compare, forecast, or evaluate your ediscovery performance, this session is for you! A panel of judges and ediscovery experts will review and discuss real-time, trended data pulled from thousands of consolidated matters that show key trends and changes in the ediscovery market. Examples of the metrics our panel will discuss include:

  • The average number of custodians per matter
  • The percentage of data processed that is email
  • The average number of produced gigabytes

Panelists are: Wendy Butler Curtis, Orrick; Emily Cobb, Ropes & Gray; Eli Nelson, McKenna Long & Aldridge; Lynn Looby, Dow Chemical.  Moderator: Dean Hager, President & CEO, Kroll Ontrack.

Dispelling Myths: Understanding the Risks of Discovery Outsourcing

Outsourcing discovery is not a new concept in today’s legal landscape. Clients and counsel are always looking for new and innovative ways to balance the duty to preserve and produce information while attempting to add predictability with ever-growing legal expenses. Many law departments have formed strong opinions about whether outsourcing all or some portion of the discovery function is the best approach for their organization. While some view outsourcing as an important part of managing their discovery workload and scaling to meet the unpredictable demand, others shy away from using outside resources. Over time, competing opinions have given rise to confusion, fears and myths that may prevent companies from reaching the most efficient, affordable and effective balance in the discovery process. This session will focus on dispelling the myths often associated with outsourcing and will discuss a range of options, models and lessons learned through years of experience.

Panelists are: Dustin Guzior, Desmarais LLP; David Stanton, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP; Tom Mullane, United Technologies Corp. (UTC); Dawson Horn, American International Group (AIG).  Moderator: Royce Cohen, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.

3:45 – 5:00 PM:

Global Discovery: Asia, Europe and Beyond

Even if you are not handling matters in Asia or Europe today, you will be within the next three years. From country-specific data privacy laws to cultural and language differences, US-based companies and firms have a number of challenges when conducting cost-effective and defensible e-discovery practices overseas. Incorporating survey results from leading e-discovery practitioners in Asia and Europe, this panel will provide US-based attorneys with a framework for managing multinational discovery matters effectively.

Attendees of this session will learn about:

  • The evolving data privacy regulatory environment across Asia and Europe
  • Common cross border scenarios and key “dos and don’ts” for maintaining data privacy compliance
  • Case studies of recent multinational discovery projects and additional resources

Panelists are: Craig Earnshaw, Senior Managing Director, FTI Technology; David Horrigan, Analyst & Counsel, Content Compliance and Legal Technologies,451; Gareth Evans, Partner, Gibson Dunn; Ellen Frye, Litigation Associate, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP; Jennifer Hamilton, Senior & Global eDiscovery Counsel, John Deere.

Navigating the Technology Minefield – Managing Discovery Challenges from the Cloud, Social Media and BYOD

Just as organizations were becoming comfortable managing discovery within traditional IT environments, technology leaps forward, presenting new opportunities and new challenges.  The growth of emerging technologies such as Cloud Computing, Social Media and Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) has enabled organizations to reduce costs, while improving scalability, productivity, visibility, communications and customer service.  These innovations, combined with increasing globalization, also introduce new information management challenges and potentially security and privacy risks.  Today’s environment requires new strategies, governance, policies, procedures and systems to effectively manage data and administer a successful discovery program.

Panelists are: Dan Coppola, Huron Legal; Sabrina Mizrachi, FMC Corporation; Jeff Fuisz, Kaye Scholer.

In addition to these, there are other eDiscovery-related sessions today.  For a complete description for all sessions today, click here.

So, what do you think?  Did you make it into LTNY this year?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Welcome to LegalTech New York 2014! – eDiscovery Trends
 

Today is the start of LegalTech® New York 2014 (LTNY) and, for the fourth year in a row, eDiscoveryDaily is here to report about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show.  Over the next three days, we will provide a description each day of some of the sessions related to eDiscovery to give you a sense of the topics being covered.  If you’re in the New York area, I encourage you to check out the show – there are a number of sessions (both paid and free) available and over 218 exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

While at the show, we will (also for the fourth year in a row!) be interviewing several industry thought leaders to see what they think are the significant trends for 2014 and, which of those are evident at LTNY.  After the show, we will announce the series of thought leader interviews and identify when each will be published.  Mark your calendars!

Perform a “find” on today’s LTNY conference schedule for “discovery” or “information governance” and you’ll get 60 hits.  So, there is plenty to talk about!  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:

10:30 – 11:45 AM:

Cost Control – Enterprise Discovery Management Metrics and Repeatable Processes

The need for electronic discovery will not diminish in the short term which invites an opportunity to apply quantitative methods into the process in order to more effectively manage the people, process and technology.  Tools and techniques, which can provide appropriate Project Planning which can lead to efficient/comprehensive Project Execution, Monitoring and Control.  Lastly, capturing metrics/lessons learned for integration into the Optimization of the enterprise process is a key component contributing to process maturity.

  1. Breakdown of EDRM In-house and Teaming with your Service Provider (5 minutes)
  2. Project Planning – Types of information which help with decision making and cost avoidance
  3. Project Execution – Develop/Acquire Project Team, Quality Assurance, Information Distribution
  4. Monitoring – Real-time reporting on Process, People and leveraging Technology
  5. Lessons Learned – Leveraging Organizational Process Assets (“OPAs”)

Panelists are: Kelly Lack, Counsel, Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Brett Tarr, Director of eDiscovery, Caesars Entertainment, Inc.; Scott A. Carlson, Chair, National eDiscovery Practice Group, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.  Moderator: Rick Nalle, Director, Forensic Technology Services, KPMG LLP.

Is the Best Defense a Good Offense? Proactively Manage Information Governance to Control eDiscovery

The sheer volume of enterprise data is permanently affecting how organizations prepare for eDiscovery.  Even with advanced predictive analytics, it is fast becoming a mathematical impossibility to respond quickly and efficiently to a legal matter when nets are cast wide across many data silos.   This expert panel discusses information governance best practices that can help you proactively prepare for litigation, using methodologies that drive down time and cost while retaining quality and defensibility.

Panelists are: Bennett B. Borden, Co-chair of the Information Governance and eDiscovery Group, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP; Barry Murphy, Co-Founder, Principal Analyst, eDJ Group, Inc; Jason R. Baron, Information Governance and eDiscovery Group, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.  Moderator: Brian Weiss, VP Subject Matter Experts, HP Autonomy.

Optimizing People, Process, and Technology to Minimize the Total Cost of Discovery

This session will explore how corporate legal departments can take a holistic approach to discovery strategy, and better understand the primary factors that drive cost – people, process, and technology. By optimizing each of these factors, the discovery process becomes more predictable, efficient, and cost-effective:

People: Are the right resources performing each task in the discovery process? Is each participant in the process working to his/her core competencies?

Process: Is the process defined and documented? Does it appropriately balance efficiency and risk-reduction? Are effective QC and QA measures incorporated?

Technology: Is the organization taking full advantage of available technologies, consistent with its risk tolerance? Are outdated technologies driving greater expense and inefficiency?

Speakers are: Maureen O’Neill, SVP, Discovery Strategy (West), DiscoverReady; Casey Flaherty, Corporate Counsel, Kia Motors; Jessica Watts, Associate General Counsel – Discovery, Hewlett-Packard; Alex Ponce de Leon, Discovery Counsel, Intel Corporation; Marla Bergman, Vice President, Associate General Counsel Legal and Regulatory Proceedings, Goldman Sachs.

Doing It Right:  Combining Technology and Cooperation in eDiscovery

“Cooperation” and “transparency” became the buzzwords in 2008, when The Sedona Conference issued its Cooperation Proclamation.  Since then, the world of e-discovery has evolved at warp speed.  Volume has exploded.  Complexity has increased.  Judicial expectations have evolved.  At the center of it all, advancing technology has changed everything.. 

Ariana Tadler, Partner at Milberg LLP and Chair Emeritus, as well as an active member of The Sedona Conference® Steering Committee for Working Group I, leads a panel of eDiscovery thought leaders and practice experts in an overview of eDiscovery in 2014:

Attend this session to learn more about how to proactively combine technology and cooperation to “do e-discovery right,” including:

  • When and how to use cutting edge technologies – and when to avoid them
  • Updates on current “best practices” and judicial expectations
  • How to cooperate in the world of technology-assisted review
  • How to deal with the “pretend cooperator”

Gain from the experience and expertise of seasoned eDiscovery professionals in this mixture of discourse and dialogue.

Panelists are: Maura R. Grossman, Of Counsel, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; Ronni Solomon, Partner, King & Spalding; Conor Crowley, Chair of the Steering Committee, The Sedona Conference Working Group on Best Practices for Electronic Document Retention and Production.  Moderator: Ariana J. Tadler, Partner, Milberg LLP.

2:00 – 3:15 PM:

The New Frontier: Predictive Coding for Information Governance

Predictive coding is widely used in e-discovery, and its defensibility has been broadly recognized in US courts. The question is — can the same technology be used to implement an organization’s information governance policy? The basic concept is simple: train the predictive coding system to identify documents belonging to the organization’s retention categories. But does it work?  How do you start? Who should own the process? What are the challenges? What are the benefits? And is it defensible? In this session, our panel will address these issues, bringing to bear their first-hand experience, over the last year, in groundbreaking predictive coding projects in the information governance space.

Panelists are: John Rosenthal, Partner, Chair, E-discovery and Information Management Practice, Winston & Strawn; Bennett Borden, Partner, Drinker Biddle; Barclay Blair, President, ViaLumina; Laura Kibbe, Managing Director, Expert & Professional Services, Epiq. Moderator: Warwick Sharp, Vice President Marketing and Business Development, Equivio.

The Evolution, Uses, and Case Studies of Technology Assisted Review

Many forms of what is called “Technology Assisted Review” (TAR) exist today. Once a controversial and heavily scrutinized method of analysis and review is now gaining mainstream acceptance. Join this session to hear about recent case opinions on TAR and how its variations are applied to specific use cases.

Panelists are: Anthony J. Diana, Partner, Mayer Brown; Maura R. Grossman, Of Counsel, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; The Honorable Dave Waxse, U.S. Magistrate Judge, District of Kansas. Moderator: Eric Crespolini, VP eDiscovery Solutions, HP Autonomy.

Dipping a Toe in the Waters of Predictive Coding and Advanced Analytics – How to Use a Little Cutting-Edge Technology to Make Document Review a Lot Better

This panel will examine the lowest-risk use cases for incorporating predictive coding, statistical sampling, and other advanced analytics into a document review workflow, with little added risk or disruption to established processes. Attendees will come away with ideas for “painless” ways of adopting these tools to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of document review, such as:

  • Prioritizing review
  • Reviewer QC
  • Basic statistical sampling for quality control and quality assurance
  • The latest techniques for email near-dupe grouping and threading
  • Coding propagation

Speakers are: Matt Miller, SVP, Discovery Strategy (East), DiscoverReady; Michelle Spak, Senior Counsel, Duke Energy; Marty Thompson, Senior Counsel, Hess Corporation; Shannon Capone Kirk, E-Discovery Counsel, Ropes & Gray; Thom Wisinski, Chief Knowledge Officer, Haynes & Boone LLP.

Information Governance Best Practices: Taking your Organization to the Next Level

Find out why regulatory compliance and its enforcement ranked as the second most significant threat to organizational growth after economic uncertainty.

  • Do you know how poorly controlled data governance programs increase legal and regulatory risk?
  • Do you know how data is identified, collected, and used during litigation and investigations
  • Can you articulate how to improve compliance, data privacy and information security relative to data governance?

Join Grant Thornton’s Johnny Lee and a panel of experts’ in an in-depth look at the business, litigation and compliance drivers of data governance.  Find out why compliance, IT and legal expert s must collaborate to design sustainable policies and learn how case law, technology and best practices are used as the framework for sound Information Governance practices that mitigate risk.

Panelists are: David Horrigan, Esq., Analyst & Counsel, Content Compliance & Legal Technologies, 451 Research; M. Darren Traub, Partner, Litigation Practice Group, Akerman; Joshua R. Cohen, Partner, Garson DeCorato & Cohen LLP; Gail L. Gottehrer, Partner, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP. Moderator: Johnny Lee, Managing Director – Forensic, Investigative & Dispute Services, Grant Thornton LLP.

3:45 – 5:00 PM:

The Three Rs of Enterprise Discovery Management

As the electronic discovery industry continues to mature, so must the underlying processes. Enterprises are moving away from an ad-hoc, single-matter reactive response model managed by outside counsel toward the creation of an internally-managed, e-discovery eco-system built on three fundamental Rs:

  • Reduce the volume of data potentially subject to e-Discovery
  • Re-use work product ranging from privilege keyword lists to past production sets
  • Recycle past project knowledge and transform this information into not only more efficient e-Discovery methodologies, but also process improvements that can help the business.

Panelists are: Michael Fluhr, Discovery Counsel, Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP; Kim-An Hernandez, Senior Counsel, International Paper Company; David Stanton, Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. Moderator: Daryl Teshima, Managing Director, Forensic Technology, KPMG LLP.

E-Discovery Caselaw Update

Each year, courts across the country issue hundreds of decisions addressing e-discovery issues. In this program, the panel will take a look at the most significant decisions over the last year, and analyze the state of the law on the most important issues. They will also share their views on how the opinions in 2013 foreshadow trends in 2014.

Speakers are: Amy Hinzmann, SVP, Managed Review, DiscoverReady; Ruth Hauswirth, Special Counsel and Director of Litigation and E-Discovery, Cooley LLP; Scott Coonan, Senior Director of IP, Litigation & Strategy, Juniper Networks; Kelly Lack, Attorney, Litigation Group, Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Jay C. Carle, Partner, E-Discovery and Information Governance, Seyfarth Shaw.

eDiscovery Ethics

The world of eDiscovery hinges on what comes down from the bench.  This session will feature a one-on-one casual conversation on the state of today’s eDiscovery market.  Hear from Judges Andrew Peck and James C. Francis as they discuss their views on the pertinent challenges and issues facing the industry today.  This intimate session will allow attendees true insight into the view from the bench to fully understand where the market is heading and how to best keep ahead of the game.

Speakers are: Honorable James C. Francis, United States Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York; Honorable Andrew J. Peck, United States Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York. Moderator: Anita Engles, Vice President of Product Marketing, Daegis.

In addition to these, there are other eDiscovery-related sessions today.  For a complete description for all sessions today, click here.

eDiscoveryDaily will also be “tweeting” periodically throughout LTNY, so feel free to check out our updates at twitter.com/Cloud9Discovery.

So, what do you think?  Are you planning to attend LTNY this year?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Discovery of Privileged Documents and Form of Production Addressed in Ruling on Second Motion to Compel – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In RPM Pizza LLC v. Argonaut Great Central Insurance Co., No. 10-684-BAJ-SCR, 2013 U.S. Dist. (M.D. La. Nov. 15, 2013), Louisiana Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger delivered a partial ruling on a Second Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and Interrogatory Responses filed by the plaintiffs, who filed the motion in effect to renew their previous motion to compel, to which the defendant did not respond in a timely manner. Largely due to the delayed response, Judge Reidlinger ruled in favor of the plaintiff on several aspects of the motion.

In both the original and second motion to compel, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s production of discovery documents was deficient in multiple ways. First, the defendant produced 555 documents in response to discovery requests, of which 520 had already been provided to the plaintiff. Second, the documents produced did not provide answers to the interrogatories posed in discovery, and those which answered three of the 17 Requests for Production were highly unlikely to include all of the documents that were responsive to those requests. Finally, the plaintiff objected to the quality and format of the production—specifically, that the defendant had provided PDF files without metadata instead of TIFF with metadata.

The defendant not only opposed the motion, but also sought an award for expenses and fees they had incurred to oppose. The defendant stated that the motion should be denied, since the response was supplemented voluntarily upon the Second Motion to Compel, and a privilege log was produced.

The plaintiff contested the form of production for the privilege log, asserting that it did not contain enough detail to determine whether the documents were in fact privileged. The supplied log indicated that the plaintiff had withheld documents that were “‘NRC’ (not reasonably calculated), or ‘CPTS’ (confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret)” rather than privileged. Furthermore, the plaintiff asserted, the defendant’s statement that it would rely on an advice-of-counsel defense for discovery responses meant that the defendant had waived the attorney-client privilege.

While the defendant acknowledged that its privilege log lacked the required detail, it asserted that there was insufficient time to prepare, since it had reviewed “thousands of documents on short notice” in response to the plaintiff’s “unreasonably broad discovery requests.” Furthermore, the defendant claimed that it experienced “unexpected technical issues with electronic discovery” and requested a time extension for completing the privilege log.

In his decision, Judge Reidlinger agreed that the defendant had waived the claim of privilege over withheld documents, and found the defendant’s justification for the deficiencies and delays in producing the privilege log to be “vague, unsupported, and unpersuasive.” Additionally, Judge Reidlinger dismissed the excuses of tight deadlines and time constraints because, according to the record, “the cause of Argonaut having to review and produce thousands of documents on short notice and in a short period of time is Argonaut’s own failure to take prompt, appropriate actions when it was served with the plaintiff’s discovery requests on April 19, 2013.” The 555 pages of mostly duplicate documents were not produced by the defendant until six weeks after the plaintiff’s first motion to compel was filed.

Finally, the defendant’s general objection to document production in a “particular format or matter” was overruled, due to the plaintiff’s right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(E) to specify a form of production without the need to prove why a specific form was necessary—and due to the defendant’s failure to specifically object to the form of production until its delayed supplemental response. The defendant was ordered to produce the documents in the requested format, with metadata.

So, what do you think? Should a delayed response result in stricter enforcement of discovery responses? How much does document format matter? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Quinn Emanuel Sanctioned for Inadvertent Disclosure, Samsung Escapes Sanction – eDiscovery Case Law

California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal has now handed down an order on motions for sanctions against Samsung and the Quinn Emanuel law firm in the never-ending Apple v. Samsung litigation for the inadvertent disclosure of confidential agreements that Apple had with Nokia, Ericsson, Sharp and Philips – now widely referred to as “patentgate”.

After discovery on the matter, Judge Grewal ruled as follows:

“Quinn Emanuel shall reimburse Apple, Nokia, and their counsel for any and all costs and fees incurred in litigating this motion and the discovery associated with it, as required by Rule 37 in the absence of ‘substantial justification’ or other showing of ‘harmlessness,’ neither of which the court finds here. That expense, in addition to the public findings of wrongdoing, is, in the court’s opinion, sufficient both to remedy Apple and Nokia’s harm and to discourage similar conduct in the future.”

Basically, Judge Grewal determined that “what began as a chorus of loud and certain accusations had died down to aggressive suppositions and inferences, and without anything more, Quinn Emanuel and Samsung cannot reasonably be subject to more punitive sanctions”.

Apple and Nokia had proposed a number of “creative” sanctions that Quinn and Samsung ranging from an injunction against Samsung in the case to a ten-year ban from representing any party adverse to Nokia – suggestions that Judge Grewal referred to as “ludicrously overbroad”.

For a link to the order, click here.

For our previous coverage of the case, click here, here, here, here and here.

So, what do you think?  Did Samsung and Quinn Emanuel get off lightly?  Or was the sanction appropriate?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

If You’re Going to Attend Just One Session at LegalTech Next Week, Make it This Session – eDiscovery Best Practices

In just a few days, there will be big happenings in the New York area!  No, I’m not talking about the big game, I’m talking about the biggest legal technology event of the year, LegalTech New York (LTNY).  If you’re going to be attending the conference this year (and, if not, why not?), here is a session that is a “must attend” for anyone who wants to know leading judges’ perspectives on eDiscovery rules changes and best practices.

On Day 2 of the conference, Wednesday, February 5 at 9:00am, eDiscovery industry expert Craig Ball will lead a discussion with five renowned judges who have had significant impact on how lawyers manage legal technology.  The Day Two Keynote General Session Presentation – Judges Panel: Changing Rules and Best Practices in e-Discovery will include Craig and the following judges:

  • Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, United States District Judge, Southern District of Texas
  • Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin, United States District Judge, Southern District of New York
  • Honorable John M. Facciola, United States Magistrate Judge, District of Columbia
  • Honorable James C. Francis, United States Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York
  • Honorable Andrew J. Peck, United States Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York

Most of these judges were discussed in Lisa Holton’s article (E-Discovery: A Front-Row Seat) as “trailblazing” judges in The American Lawyer (we covered it here) and we’ve covered a number of their decisions and opinions over the history of this blog.

As the summary of the session notes, when it comes to legal technology, few names are more synonymous with the industry than these panelists.  Craig will lead the discussion, as the judges share their views on today’s legal landscape with an eye towards what the future holds.  These eDiscovery pioneers will share their experiences and viewpoints to help attendees best prepare for the law and practice of tomorrow.

Craig referenced the session in his own excellent blog, Ball in Your Court, here. As Craig notes, “The judges will be discussing some of what you might expect, e.g., proposed Rules amendments, predictive coding, Rule 502 and expectations of lawyer technical competence.  We will also be exploring a few fresh issues, like the impact all those little screens are having on everyone in and out of court.”   Craig also indicated that there was “still time to add topics and questions of interest to you” – if there is a topic you would like him to cover, you can post a comment to his blog post here or email him at craig@ball.net.

Because this session is a Keynote General Session, it’s open to all attendees, so, if you’re at the show next week, this session is a must see.  Don’t miss it!

LTNY starts next Tuesday and eDiscovery Daily will be covering the show for the fourth straight year.  We will also be conducted our thought leader interview series at the show again for the fourth straight year as well!  After the show, we will publish the schedule for posting the interviews.  Stay tuned!

So, what do you think?  Are you attending LTNY this year?  Do you plan to attend this session?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.