Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

There’s a Trip of a Lifetime Available at One Firm for Employees Who Can Get Partners to Embrace Tech: eDiscovery Trends

One of the biggest hurdles from a legal technology standpoint is getting people, especially highly experienced (i.e., “old”) partners to embrace the technology.  One firm has not only tried to commit to changing that, they have “put their money where their mouth is”.

As discussed in Above the Law (Biglaw Firm Offering $100K+ For Employees Who Can Convince Old Partners To Use Tech, written by Joe Patrice), Wilson Sonsini has set aside $100K in travel awards (plus the appropriate tax gross ups) to employees who can successfully get the firm to adopt their new technologies. The firm recently sent out a memo seeking bids from “Special Ops” groups with a plan to bolster adoption with a hefty prize at the end when and if those groups meet their targets.

As Wilson’s Corporate Strategic Innovation Counsel, David Wang put it:

“Our core business is representing the most innovative companies in the world. This initiative is one example of a comprehensive effort to deliver value to clients by using the most efficient and innovative business processes and technologies.”

This is not only smart from a standpoint to establish tech adoption within the firm, it’s also a great way to communicate commitment to technology to clients and prospective clients of the firm.  If they can get a couple of publications to pick up on the story to provide free publicity, even better.  Oh wait, they just did… :o)

So, what do you think?  What does your firm do to promote adoption and use of technology inside the firm?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Today is the Day to Learn What You Need to Know to Decide Whether to Litigate or Settle Your Case!: eDiscovery Webcasts

People say that fewer and fewer cases go to trial these days. Is that true? Regardless of whether it is or not, what information do you need to know to make an informed decision whether or not to litigate or settle the case and how do you gather that information? Find out in our webcast today!

Today at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast Litigate or Settle? Info You Need to Make Case Decisions. In this one-hour webcast that’s CLE-approved in selected states, we how litigation has evolved over the years, how that impacts discovery and what you need to know to decide on the best course of action for each case. Topics include:

  • How Litigation Has Evolved
  • The Importance of Deciding Correctly
  • eDiscovery Considerations
  • Covering Your Bases While You Decide
  • Benefits of Early Data Analysis
  • How Much Each GB Can Cost You
  • Why Number of GBs Isn’t All You Need to Know
  • Why You Should Test Searches Before Meet and Confer
  • Other Tips and Tricks to Know for a Successful Outcome

As always, I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Tom O’Connor, who wrote a four part blog post series that we have published on the blog in the past couple of weeks.  To register for it, click here.  Even if you can’t make it, go ahead and register to get a link to the slides and to the recording of the webcast (if you want to check it out later).  If you want to know what you need to know to decide whether to litigate or settle a case, this is the webcast for you!

So, what do you think?  Do you struggle with gathering the information you need to make case decisions?  If so, join us today!  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Court Sides with Plaintiff’s Proposal, Orders Random Sample of the Null Set: eDiscovery Case Law

In City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD Inc., No. 17 CV 50107, No. 18 CV 379 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 2018), Illinois Magistrate Judge Iain D. Johnston adopted the parties’ proposed order establishing the production protocol for ESI with the inclusion of the plaintiffs’ proposal that a random sample of the null set will occur after the production and that any responsive documents found as a result of that process will be produced.

Case Background

In this case involving alleged breach of contract, racketeering and antitrust violations related to the defendant’s prescription medication, the parties agreed on several aspects of discovery, including a plan to use keyword searching and a protocol for agreeing on search terms, date restrictions, and custodian restrictions.  The protocol also addressed the steps to be taken if a party were to dispute a specific term as being overly broad, with the producing party to review a statistically valid sample of documents to determine if the term is returning mostly responsive documents, followed by negotiation as to any modifications to the term, with a plan to submit to the Court if they could not agree.

However, the parties could not agree on what to do after the production.  The defendants’ proposed that if “the requesting party reasonably believes that certain categories of requested documents exist that were not included in the production, the parties will meet and confer to discuss whether additional terms are necessary.”  On the other hand, the plaintiffs proposed a random sample of the null set (the documents not returned via search), with the following specific provision:

“The producing party agrees to quality check the data that does not hit on any terms (the Null Set) by selecting a statistically random sample of documents from the Null Set. The size of the statistically random sample shall be calculated using a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 2%. If responsive documents are found during the Null Set review, the producing party agrees to produce the responsive documents separate and apart from the regular production. The parties will then meet and confer to determine if any additional terms, or modifications to existing terms, are needed to ensure substantive, responsive documents are not missed.”

Judge’s Ruling

While noting that “the parties have agreed to use key word searching”, Judge Johnston evaluated the “pros and cons” of keyword searching as compared to technology assisted review (TAR), but ultimately decided that he “will not micromanage the litigation and force TAR onto the parties.”

As for the proposal in dispute, Judge Johnston ruled that sampling the null set is reasonable under Rule 26(g), stating that “Defendants provide no reason establishing that a random sampling of the null set cannot be done when using key word searching. Indeed, sampling the null set when using key word searching provides for validation to defend the search and production process, and was commonly used before the movement towards TAR.”

Judge Johnston also ruled that sampling the null set is proportionate under Rule 26(b)(1), stating: “The Court’s experience and understanding is that a random sample of the null set will not be unreasonably expensive or burdensome. Moreover and critically, Defendants have failed to provide any evidence to support their contention…Indeed, the Court’s experience and understanding is that the random sample will not be voluminous in the context of a case of this magnitude.”  Judge Johnston also cited the issues at stake, the potential amount in controversy, asymmetrical discovery (with the defendants having access to the vast majority of the relevant information), the “substantial resources” of the defendant and that “the burden and expense of a random sampling of the null set does not outweigh its likely benefit of ensuring proper and reasonable – not perfect – document disclosure” all as reasons as to why sampling was proportionate in this case.

As a result, Judge Johnston ordered a random sample of the null set, determining that “Plaintiffs’ proposed 95% confidence level with +/-margin of 2% is acceptable.”

Editor’s Note: It’s worth noting that if you plug the proposed confidence level and margin of error into the Raosoft sample size calculator, you get no more than 2,401 documents that need to be sampled — even if the size of the null set is as large as 10 million documents.  Conducting a random sample is one of the most proportionate activities associated with eDiscovery review.

So, what do you think?  Should random sampling of the null set always be required in cases like this to help confirm a comprehensive search result?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

New Phishing Scam Goes After Office 365 Users: Cybersecurity Trends

According to a recent blog post, there’s a new phishing campaign where the scammers are taking advantage of a small, but serious oversight in Microsoft’s Office 365 suite of online services to serve phishing emails that are visually indistinguishable from work-related emails and appear completely safe.  This new attack has impacted an estimated 10% of Office 365 users worldwide.

As reported in Bitdefender (The Underrated Importance of Training Your Staff to Spot Devious Phishing Attacks, written by Filip Truta, and covered by Sharon Nelson’s excellent Ride the Lighning blog), PhishPoint, as the campaign is dubbed, has a variant that most other phishing scams don’t: it goes beyond email and uses SharePoint to harvest end-users’ credentials.

Here is how the PhishPoint scam works:

  • Victim receives email containing a link to a SharePoint document
  • Email body is identical to a standard SharePoint invitation to collaborate
  • Victim clicks the hyperlink in the email thinking it is a legitimate work document
  • Victim’s browser automatically opens a SharePoint file
  • SharePoint file impersonates a standard access request to a OneDrive file
  • Victim clicks on “Access Document” hyperlink that leads to a spoofed Office 365 login screen
  • Victim attempts to login, at which point their credentials are harvested by the PhishPoint authors

Exploited properly, the scam can easily lead to a catastrophic data breach. While Microsoft’s link-scanning security layer does sniff out malicious links in the body of an email, it does not scan the links inside a linked SharePoint document. Even if it did, it still couldn’t blacklist a malicious URL inside the document without blacklisting links to all SharePoint files. Researchers feel this is a dangerous oversight.

Stolen corporate domain usernames and credentials are in high demand on the dark web and underground specialized forums. As more and more organizations are moving to cloud-based solutions, phishers themselves are adjusting their techniques to steal credentials via existing attack tools, such as phishing kits.

These phishing kits are usually stored on legitimate-but-compromised websites and are linked to in generic communication. Fake invitations to files hosted on SharePoint Online, outstanding payments for Office 365 subscriptions, or notices of upcoming account termination are the most common lures used to persuade victims into giving away their credentials. And since the messages aren’t branded with visual identities of specific companies, these campaigns likely target a wide pool of organizations, not just a few select companies.  Some of the phishing kits even have their own defense mechanisms that enable them to fly under the radar and avoid blacklisting.

The post also provides several recommendations to avoid getting caught by phishing scammers, including hovering with your mouse cursor over the hyperlink to make sure the link is actually the site it claims to be, being wary of any unsolicited or uncharacteristic requests to input your credentials and using two-factor authentication on every site that offers it, among others.

These phishing scammers can be very clever and can even mimic people from within your own organization to make you think you’re clicking on a link provided by a co-worker.  One thing we have done at CloudNine to help identify those is to mark any emails coming from an external source with an “*** External Email ***” marker inserted into the received email to help recipients identify those phishing instances.  The battle against malware scammers continues.

So, what do you think?  Do you have any mechanisms your organization uses to spot phishing attempts that you would like to share?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request for Native Re-Production by Defendant: eDiscovery Case Law

In Baker v. Santa Clara Univ., No. 17-cv-02213-EJD (VKD) (N.D. Cal. Jul. 31, 2018), California Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied, without prejudice, the plaintiff’s request for an order compelling production of electronically stored documents in native format, finding that the plaintiff “does not have a compelling reason for demanding that SCU (Santa Clara University) re-produce its entire responsive document production in native format simply because she might find something missing.”

Case Background

In this case involving claims of ongoing harassment, discrimination and retaliation by the plaintiff against her employer, the plaintiff served 54 requests for the production of documents in May 2018, with the 54th request to cover the format of production for all documents responsive to the other 53 requests, stating:

“With respect to each request, produce all documents in native format, including electronically stored information, metadata, and all metadata fields. Do not do anything that strips, removes, changes, limits, or otherwise alters the actual electronically stored information and metadata fields of any document that exists in an electronic format. Ensure that all such evidence remains intact, undisturbed, and is produced with each and every electronic document.”

The defendant produced over 2,500 pages of documents in response to the plaintiff’s document requests, but objected to Request No. 54 and produced all documents in .pdf format without metadata. The defendant did not specifically contend that the documents it produced are maintained in .pdf format in the usual course of its business.  As a result, the plaintiff asked for an order requiring the defendant to produce all responsive, electronically stored information in native format.  In requesting the re-production in native format, the plaintiff stated that native format “is very useful in identifying missing `parent emails'[,] `child emails'[,] hidden attachments[,] altered electronic records[,] and other electronic activity having the usefulness of establishing the existence of electronic records that have not been produced.”  In response, the defendant stated, without contradiction, that it attempted to engage the plaintiff’s counsel in a discussion of the search and production of electronically stored information more than a year ago in connection with the parties’ obligations under Rule 26(f), and that the plaintiff’s counsel did not meaningfully engage in the required discussion.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Demarchi observed that “Neither party has complied with the rules and guidelines that govern the production of electronically stored information”.  Noting that “Rule 34(b)(2) requires a party responding to document requests to object to a requested form of production for electronically stored information, and to state the form or forms of production it intends to use,” Judge Demarchi determined that “while SCU objected to the form of production demanded by Ms. Baker in response to Request No. 54, it did not specify the form of production it intended to use, and it apparently did not organize and label its production to correspond to the categories in Ms. Baker’s requests.”

As for the plaintiff, Judge Demarchi determined that the plaintiff “appears to have utterly failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 26(f) and this Court’s Guidelines for the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information by refusing to meaningfully engage in any discussions early in the case about the search and production of documents stored in electronic format.”

Stating that “The parties now find themselves in a dispute two weeks before the close of fact discovery that might have been avoided had they both complied with their respective and mutual discovery obligations”, Judge Demarchi, while acknowledging that the defendant “has not made any showing that re-producing some or all of its production in native format would be unduly burdensome” stated:

“Ms. Baker’s primary argument for demanding production of documents in native format is that such production might reveal that SCU has not produced all of the documents it should have. SCU’s document production is not particularly voluminous, and Ms. Baker has had nearly a month to review it. Absent a specific, articulable basis for believing SCU has not complied with its discovery obligations, Ms. Baker does not have a compelling reason for demanding that SCU re-produce its entire responsive document production in native format simply because she might find something missing.”

As a result, Judge Demarchi denied the plaintiff’s request without prejudice, stating “If Ms. Baker identifies particular documents or specific categories of documents for which she requires metadata or production in native format, she should make a request for re-production of those documents to SCU, together with an explanation of why re-production is necessary, as SCU has invited her to do already. If the parties cannot agree on whether or to what extent re-production may be necessary or justified, they may bring their dispute before the Court pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases.”

So, what do you think?  Should the plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 26(f) have let the defendant off the hook for failing to comply with Rule 34(b)(2)?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily 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’s ILTACON 2018 Sessions: eDiscovery Trends

As noted yesterday, Tuesday and Monday, the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) annual educational conference of 2017 (otherwise known as ILTACON) is happening this week and eDiscovery Daily has once again covered the show and, this year, CloudNine has been exhibiting at the show and participating in a major way.  This is the last day to check out the show at the Gaylord National Resort in National Harbor, MD if you’re in the Washington DC area with a number of sessions available and as many as 209(!) exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

Here are a couple of sessions to check out today (time displayed is ET):

9:00 AM – 10:00 AM:

Design Thinking in Litigation Support: A practical workshop on how design thinking can be leveraged in litigation support to develop a solution that works for the legal teams. Hear real world examples of how design thinking improved customer service and deliveries, and improved processes and policies.

Takeaways:

  • Learn about the basic fundamental steps to design thinking
  • Hear about examples of how law firms have used design thinking to improve their legal services to clients.

Speaker: David Bryant Isbell, Managing Director, Global eDiscovery and Data Advisory Baker & McKenzie.

11:15 AM – 12:15 PM:

Transforming Records Managers: Assessing and Adapting to the Changing Skill Needs for Information Governance: Records management is a critical component of Information Governance (IG) but it is only part of the solution. IG is a multi-discipline, organization-wide strategy requiring collaboration and records managers are best positioned to lead the way. Learn how to assess and adapt your records team to the new, more broad skills needed to address information governance.

Takeaways:

  • Understand the key skills for Information Governance Program Managers vs. traditional Records Managers and how to assess current skills to identify gaps in skills needed to transition
  • Matrix of essential skills and relevant certifications
  • An action plan to develop the skills of your team

Speakers: James A. Merrifield, Records & Information Governance Manager Robinson & Cole LLP; Leigh Isaacs, Director, Records & Information Governance White & Case LLP; Terry Coan, Managing Director HBR Consulting LLC.

So, what do you think?  Did you attend ILTACON this year?  If so, what did you think?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Wednesday’s ILTACON 2018 Sessions: eDiscovery Trends

As noted yesterday and Monday, the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) annual educational conference of 2017 (otherwise known as ILTACON) is happening this week and eDiscovery Daily will once again be covering the show and, this year, CloudNine will exhibiting at the show and participating in a major way.  There’s still time to check out the show at the Gaylord National Resort in National Harbor, MD if you’re in the Washington DC area with a number of sessions available and as many as 209(!) exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

In addition to exhibiting at the show in booth 936, CloudNine also hosted a happy hour yesterday at the National Harbor’s Public House.  We’re also going to be the sunglass sponsor for the ACEDS Monumental Sunset Cruise today from 7:00 to 10:00pm ET!

Here is one session to check out today (time displayed is ET):

3:30 PM – 5:00 PM:

Litigation Support & Legal Operations: Ideas and Innovation Workshop: Be prepared to roll up your sleeves and actively participate in this interactive session!  This will be a combination of a lightning-round expert panel, a town hall, and a peer-to-peer tabletop workshop. Attendees will have the opportunity to collaborate and solve some of the real world problems we face in litigation support and legal operations, today.  A recap of challenges and solutions will be provided to attendees at the end of the session.

Takeaways:

  • The opportunity to participate in collaborative problem solving.
  • Exposure to issues attendees may or may not be aware of.
  • List of collaborative solutions developed during the session for each of the scenarios identified.

Speaker: David Cowen, President & Managing Partner The Cowen Group.

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

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Tuesday’s ILTACON 2018 Sessions: eDiscovery Trends

As noted yesterday, the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) annual educational conference of 2017 (otherwise known as ILTACON) is happening this week and eDiscovery Daily will once again be covering the show and, this year, CloudNine will exhibiting at the show and participating in a major way.  There’s still time to check out the show at the Gaylord National Resort in National Harbor, MD if you’re in the Washington DC area with a number of sessions available and as many as 209(!) exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

In addition to exhibiting at the show in booth 936, CloudNine will also host a happy hour today from 4:30 to 6:30pm ET at the National Harbor’s Public House (click here to register).  Come and get to know CloudNine, your provider for LAW PreDiscovery®, Concordance® and the CloudNine™ SaaS platform!  We’re also going to be the sunglass sponsor for the ACEDS Monumental Sunset Cruise tomorrow from 7:00 to 10:00pm ET!

Here are a few sessions to check out today (all times ET):

1:30 PM – 2:30 PM:

O365 and eDiscovery: What’s New?: Office 365, Microsoft’s current software suite, is often a “go-to” tool in e-Discovery. We’ll examine the strengths and weaknesses of each applications and get up to speed with all of the newest features. Additionally, we’ll examine the future of e-Discovery and what to expect from Microsoft as its products evolve.

Speakers include: Derek Nagel Esq., Consultant; John Collins, Director, Information Governance / Compliance The Options Clearing Corporation (OCC).

3:30 PM – 5:00 PM:

EDiscovery Directors’ Roundtable: What Keeps You Up at Night?: Litigation Support and eDiscovery Directors are tasked with running a business within a business.  The challenges you face go beyond the case specific:  From expanding services to other practice areas, how to best present your team’s value to clients and firm stakeholders, understanding your staffing and staff development needs and forecasting technology trends, to addressing evolving, complex data privacy and security concerns.  Your job is to keep your business model relevant and profitable in an increasingly competitive and consolidated industry.  This session will provide a forum for directors to share and learn from each other in a “safe” environment.  The session is for law firm professionals at the director level only.

Takeaways:

  • Gather, share, and identify growth opportunities for your department within your firm.
  • Learn what’s worked for others in gathering metrics and presenting those to firm management.
  • Compare and strategize how to overcome challenges and pain points unique to this role.

Speakers include: Joy Holley, Director of Practice Support Bryan Cave, LLP; Chris Haley, Director of Legal Technology Troutman Sanders LLP; Brian Jenson, Director, Litigation Support & E-Discovery Services Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

Information Governance Roundtable: Come and enjoy a rich and detailed discussion among law firm information governance professionals. They will dive deep into current issues and future risks and issues of note.

Speakers include: Tamara Tureson, Compliance and Records Manager Faegre Baker Daniels LLP; Joshua Johns, Manager of CTS Platform, Process and Information Governance Faegre Baker Daniels LLP; Brian McCauley, Director of Information Governance Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP; Brianne Aul, Firmwide Senior Records and Information Governance Manager Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L.L.P.; Jill Sterbakov, Information Governance Compliance Attorney Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L.L.P.

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

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

ILTACON 2018 Has Begun!: eDiscovery Trends

The International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) annual educational conference of 2018 (known as ILTACON) kicked off yesterday with several networking events, and begins in earnest today with the first day of sessions.  As always, eDiscovery Daily will once again be covering the show and, this year, CloudNine will exhibiting at the show and participating in a major way.  Over the next four 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.

In addition to exhibiting at the show in booth 936, CloudNine will also host a happy hour on Tuesday, August 21 from 4:30 to 6:30pm ET at the National Harbor’s Public House (click here to register).  Come and get to know CloudNine, your provider for LAW PreDiscovery®, Concordance® and the CloudNine™ SaaS platform!  We’re also going to be the sunglass sponsor for the ACEDS Monumental Sunset Cruise on Wednesday, August 22 from 7:00 to 10:00pm ET!

If you’re in the Washington DC area, come check out the show at the Gaylord National Resort in National Harbor, MD – there are a number of sessions available and as many as 209(!) exhibitors providing information on their products and services.  Sessions of interest (including one I’m speaking at today at 1pm!) in the main conference tracks include (all times ET):

11:00 AM – 12:00 PM:

The Future of eDiscovery: A Discussion Amongst Industry Leaders: What does the future of eDiscovery hold? Hear from industry leaders as they discuss their predictions of both the short and long-term future of the eDiscovery market. They’ll analyze anticipated disrupters and how their organizations are planning for change. Additionally, they’ll share practical steps for law firms to begin preparing themselves today.

Takeaways:

  • Hear from industry vision leaders on what they see as our future in the eDiscovery space will be and how they are planning for any change within their organization.
  • Learn about the market disruptors?
  • What should law departments or law firms be thinking and preparing for?

Speakers include: Andrew Sieja, President & CEO Relativity; Jay Leib, Founder and CEO NexLP; Erin Harrison, Managing Director Baretz+Brunelle; Atanu Banerjee, Group Program Manager Microsoft Corporation.

1:00 PM – 2:00 PM:

eDiscovery Training Roadmap: In this interactive and informative session, we will walk through how to train and develop your eDiscovery staff. The discussion will help you determine who the stakeholders are and what skills do they need to succeed. We will also discuss eDiscovery best practices, training strategies, and defining work processes. The discussion will include types of training that won’t work and war stories from our veteran eDiscovery experts.

Speakers include: Gillian Glass, Director of Practice Support, Paralegals and Records Farella Braun + Martel LLP; Joy Murao, Founder, CEO Practice Aligned Resources.

eDiscovery and Litigation Support for Small Firms: Which Hat Should I Wear Today?: eDiscovery is a critical component of litigation these days. Learn how small firms can effectively manage eDiscovery and litigation support without a dedicated department and while juggling multiple tasks.

Speakers include: Brett Burney, Principal Burney Consultants; Doug Austin, Vice President of Products & Services CloudNine; Dana Wesley Sarti, Litigation Support Coordinator, Information Security Contact Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP; Sherry Rather, Litigation Support Coordinator Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP.

2:30 PM – 3:30 PM:

Managing Out-of-the-Ordinary Projects in eDiscovery: How does your firm approach out-of-the-ordinary projects?  This session will provide hands on practical information on how to approach non-ordinary projects.  Every project should be approached in the same manner, using fundamental project management steps.  We will review these steps and provide insight on how some special projects were successful using these fundamentals.

Speakers include: Michael Quartararo, Managing Director eDPM Advisory Services; Richard Brooman, Litigation Support Project Manager Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr; Jessica Hasen, Counsel, E-Discovery Services and Strategy Perkins Coie; Jeremiah Weasenforth, Managing Project Attorney Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

And, of course, you don’t want to miss the Exhibit Hall Opening Reception from 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM ET, where “there’s an open world of video games at ILTA’s Partner Video Game HQ” where attendees can play lots of video games while enjoying food and drink.  Come join us at booth #936 and try to beat us in a game of Mario Kart 8 – you could win a Nintendo Switch!

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

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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