Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

eDiscovery for the Rest of Us: eDiscovery Webcasts

Does it seem like eDiscovery technology today is only for the “mega-firms” and “mega-cases”? What about for the “rest of us”? Are there solutions for the small firms and cases too? What does the average lawyer need to know about eDiscovery today and how to select a solution that’s right for them?  We will discuss these and other questions in a webcast at the end of the month.

On Wednesday, May 30 at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast eDiscovery for the Rest of Us. In this one-hour webcast that’s CLE-approved in selected states, we will discuss what lawyers need to know about eDiscovery, the various sources of data to consider, and the types of technology solutions to consider to make an informed decision and get started using technology to simplify the discovery process. Topics include:

  • How Automation is Affecting All Industries, including eDiscovery
  • Drivers for eDiscovery Automation Today
  • Challenges from Various Sources of ESI Data
  • Ethical Duties and Rules for Managing Discovery
  • Getting Data Through the Process Efficiently
  • Small Case Examples: Ernie and EDna
  • Key Components of an eDiscovery Solution
  • Types of Tools to Consider
  • Recommendations for Getting Started

As always, I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Tom O’Connor, who is currently writing an article on the topic that we plan to publish on the blog in the next 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 eDiscovery solution options there within an affordable budget, this is the webcast for you!  It’s not a “Festivus for the rest of us”, it’s eDiscovery for the rest of us!

So, what do you think?  Do you feel like you can’t afford eDiscovery technology?  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.

Former Autonomy CFO Convicted of Fraud: eDiscovery Trends

Remember the fiasco that was the Hewlett-Packard (HP) acquisition of Autonomy (and our coverage of it back then)?  Back in 2012, HP took a multi billion charge resulting from its acquisition of Autonomy back in 2011, one of the largest acquisitions in the eDiscovery industry at the time (and still).  HP called on US and British authorities to investigate what it called “serious accounting improprieties, disclosure failures and outright misrepresentations at Autonomy” before the acquisition.  Those allegations have now led to a conviction.

Legal IT Insider (Former Autonomy CFO & Darktrace director Sushovan Hussain convicted of fraud – hat tip Rob Robinson’s Complex Discovery blog) covered the conviction of Autonomy’s former chief financial officer and ex-Darktrace director Sushovan Hussain, who was found guilty of fraud by a San Francisco court last week.

A 12-member federal jury convicted Hussain of 16 counts of wire and securities fraud. The verdict precedes a $5.1 billion civil suit brought by HP in the UK against Hussain and Autonomy’s founder and former CEO Mike Lynch, scheduled to begin next year. Lynch is counter-suing for $160 million, claiming lost investment opportunities due to reputational damage. He has strongly rejected HP’s claims that management misled HP over the company’s value.

Hewlett-Packard split into two companies in 2015 – Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) and HP Inc.—with HPE eventually selling off parts of Autonomy. The latter company issued a statement on Monday, April 30th saying: “HPE is pleased with the verdict. As we have consistently maintained, Mr Hussain engaged in outright fraud and deliberately misled the market about non-existent sales through a series of calculated sham transactions.”

“Autonomy manipulated their revenue, and quarterly results, making an accurate valuation impossible. That Mr Hussain attempted to depict the fraud as nothing more than a misunderstanding of international accounting rules was, and still remains, patently ridiculous – and the jury has now held him accountable for his role in defrauding HP.”

Naturally, Hussain’s lawyer, John Keker, said he was disappointed with the verdict and intends to appeal.  Between that and the suit against Lynch scheduled for trial next year, this story will still be alive and well for some time to come.

So, what do you think?  Will we see an eDiscovery deal like that again?  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.

“Master” Your Knowledge of eDiscovery With This Conference in Chicago in Two Weeks: eDiscovery Trends

If you’re in the Chicago area or plan to be there on May 22, join legal technology experts and professionals at The Masters Conference 2018 Chicago event for a full day of educational sessions covering a wide range of topics!

The Masters Conference brings together leading experts and professionals from law firms, corporations and the bench to develop strategies, practices and resources for managing the information life cycle.  This year’s Chicago event covers topics ranging from legal technology innovation to cybersecurity to strategy and advocacy in eDiscovery to Blockchain to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which will only be 3 days away at that point!  There are even TED talks and a General Counsel roundtable!

The event will be held at the Microsoft Technology Center, Aon Center, 200 E Randolph St, Chicago, IL 60601.  Registration begins at 8am, with sessions starting shortly after that, at 8:45am.

CloudNine will be sponsoring the session On Premise or Off Premise? A Look At Security Approaches to eDiscovery at 8:45am.  My colleague Clint Lehew, VP of Channel Programs at CloudNine will be moderating with Matthew Gasaway, Director and Senior Counsel at AbbVie, Kendell Howard of United Airlines, Jeff Dreiling, Founder at Complete Legal and Kristi Smith, Attorney at Bryan Cave, as panelists.

Their panel discussion will discuss on-premise and off-premise eDiscovery solutions and considerations for each.  It should be a very informative discussion with a very knowledgeable panel.  Please join them!

Click here to register for the conference.  The Masters Conference has several other events coming up the remainder of the year, including Denver, San Francisco, New York, London, Washington DC and, of course, Orlando.  Click here for more information on remaining scheduled events for the year.

So, what do you think?  Are you going to be in Chicago on May 22?  If so, come check out a great event!  And, as always, 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.

More Than Two Thirds of Data Breaches Take Months to Discover: Cybersecurity Trends

One of my favorite annual cybersecurity publications to read is the Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR), which analyzes the reported cybersecurity and data breach incidents for the year.  As always, this year’s report has some interesting findings.

But first, this week’s eDiscovery Tech Tip of the Week is about Selecting Views.  Workflows associated with reviewing documents in discovery can be varied, depending on the task to be accomplished during review, the type of information needed to conduct the review effectively and the individual’s preferred style in conducting the review.  It’s important to find a an eDiscovery review platform that gives you options for review that fit your workflows.

To see an example of how Selecting Views is conducted using our CloudNine platform, click here (requires BrightTalk account, which is free).

Anyway, every year, the Verizon DBIR report starts off with a notable quote.  This year, the report writers chose to get downright Shakespearean with the quote “I would give all my fame for a pot of ale, and safety” from Henry V.  Sounds like a pretty good trade to me!

Anyway, here are some interesting statistics from the 68 page PDF report:

  • They are reporting on over 53,000 incidents and 2,216 confirmed data breaches;
  • 73% of reported breaches were perpetrated by outsiders, 28% by internal actors;
  • 50% of breaches were carried out by organized criminal groups;
  • 12% of breaches involved actors identified as nation-state or state-affiliated;
  • Who was affected? 24% of breaches affected healthcare organizations, 15% of breaches involved accommodation and food services, 14% were breaches of public sector entities and a whopping 58% of victims are categorized as small businesses.  So, it’s not just the “big guys” who are the targets.
  • How do they get you? 48% of breaches featured hacking, 30% included malware, 17% of breaches had errors as causal events, 17% were social attacks, 12% involved privilege misuse and 11% of breaches involved physical actions.
  • Also, 49% of non-point of sale malware was installed via malicious email, 76% of breaches were financially motivated and, the most remarkable stat, 68% of breaches took months or longer to discover.

As always, the report chock full of graphics and statistics which makes it easier to read than the size of the report indicates and covers everything from social attacks to ransomware to denial of service to incident classification patterns and coverage of data breaches and other incidents in several industries.

You can download a copy of the report here.  Once again, you can register and download the report or just choose to download the report.  This is our fourth year covering the report (previous reports covered here, here and here).  Enjoy!

So, what do you think?  Have you ever experienced any data breaches, either personally or professionally?  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.

It’s Not Too Late to Attend This Year’s EDRM Workshop at Duke: eDiscovery Best Practices

It’s hard to believe, but it’s almost time for another Spring EDRM Workshop meeting!  For the second year, the 2018 EDRM Spring Workshop will be held at EDRM’s new home at Duke University Law School in Durham, North Carolina.  So, what can you expect at this year’s meeting?  Let’s take a look.

The Workshop will be held at Duke Law School at 210 Science Drive, Durham, NC 27708-0362 on Wednesday, May 23 through Friday, May 25.

Sessions will include working meetings and updates on the TAR guidelines project, the GDPR project, and a new project to revise the EDRM model(!), as well as sessions to launch new efforts to create a template for proportionality analysis and address issues in information governance. Project teams will meet during the afternoon of Wednesday, May 23rd; the general event will begin with a reception at 6 p.m. Wednesday and will conclude by noon on Friday, May 25th.

Believe it or not, you don’t have to be an EDRM member to attend.  The conference fee is $650 for non-members; $500 for members (the fee covers meeting expenses and meals).  Contact edrm@law.duke.edu if you are a member but have not received the discount code.  If you’re a non-member, you can add an annual EDRM membership for just $50 when registering for the workshop, for a total payment of $700 for membership and workshop registration.

If you’re coming in from out of town, a limited number of rooms on a “first-come first-served” basis have been reserved at the Washington Duke Inn at the rate of $199.00 per night plus tax through May 7.  You can also book your room online at this link: Duke Law EDRM 2018 Workshop.

I’ve been coming to EDRM Workshop meetings since the second year of EDRM’s existence in 2006 and last year was one of the best meetings ever!  The Duke campus is beautiful and the meeting venue is first rate.  I will be there again this year and so will several of my colleagues from CloudNine!  For my recap of last year’s meeting, click here.  Will we see you there?

So, what do you think?  Do you plan to attend this year’s EDRM meeting?  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 Affirms Ruling in Battle Between eDiscovery Providers Over Hired Sales Agents: eDiscovery Case Law

Remember the lawsuit filed by DTI against LDiscovery and four former sales agents of DTI who were hired by LDiscovery, claiming they misappropriated trade secrets, interfered with client relationships and breached their contracts?  Last year, an opinion provided by New York District Judge Jed S. Rakoff last week detailed his rejection of all arguments by DTI that led to his denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction.  Last week, the Second Circuit affirmed the ruling, determining that there is no basis to infer that LDiscovery engaged in any wrongdoing.

An article in Bloomberg Law (E-Discovery Firm Dodges Rival’s Trade Secrets Suit, written by Michael Greene, hat tip to Rob Robinson’s Complex Discovery blog) covered last week’s ruling by the appellate court.  In its ruling, the Court stated “there appears no basis in the amended complaint from which we can plausibly infer that LDiscovery is liable for the misconduct alleged”, noting that the “amended complaint did not identify a single customer who was actually brought to LDiscovery”.  The court also noted “Nor does there appear any support for DTI’s contention that the Individual Defendants had not fully complied with their one-year non-competition covenants.”

DTI filed its lawsuit last April against four salesman (who had originally worked for Epiq prior to DTI’s acquisition of Epiq) and LDiscovery, after they resigned from DTI in January.  DTI had contended that the salesman had breached their nondisclosure covenants by failing to return two thumb drives in their possession, and that they had breached their employee non-solicitation clauses by jointly searching for new employment and also by allegedly soliciting two other DTI employees, but Judge Rakoff stated that agreement was “unenforceable insofar as it purports to prohibit at-will employees, who have yet to accept an offer of new employment, from “inducing” or even “encouraging” their coworkers to leave their present employer.”

As a result, Judge Rakoff dismissed the claims against LDiscovery and the appellate court affirmed the ruling last week.  The case is Doc. Techs., Inc. v. LDiscovery, LLC, 2018 BL 143523, 2d Cir., 17-2659-CV, 4/24/18.

So, what do you think?  How enforceable should non-compete agreements be?  As always, please share any comments you might have with us or let us know 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.

What Happens in the Internet Each Minute in 2018? More Than Ever: eDiscovery Trends

The past two years, we’ve taken a look at a terrific infographic each year that illustrated what happens within the internet in a typical minute.  2018 is a new year and it’s always fun to take a fresh look.  So, let’s take a look at what happens in an internet minute in 2018.

But first, this week’s eDiscovery Tech Tip of the Week is about Creating Fields.  Classifying documents as responsive, non-responsive or privileged and recording and tracking information about the documents during the review and production process is key to effective workflow management of the discovery process as a whole.  The easier it is to be able to create the fields you need to classify and track documents through the review and production process.

To see an example of how Creating Fields is conducted using our CloudNine platform, click here (requires BrightTalk account, which is free).

As for the internet minute, this updated graphic, once again created by Lori Lewis, illustrates what happens within the internet in a typical minute in 2018.  There are a couple of different categories tracked in this graphic than last year’s, but most are the same.  Once again, the ones that are the same are all up compared to last year – some more than others (is Netflix viewing really up 3 1/2 times more than last year?).

Here is a comparison between 2017 and 2018 (we previously published the graphic for 2016 here):

Once again, I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the numbers, so take them for what it’s worth.  They say a picture says a thousand words, so consider my blog post complete for today!  :o)

So, what do you think?  How have the challenges of Big Data affected your organization?  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.

eDiscovery Privilege Review in the Trump-Cohen-Daniels Saga: eDiscovery Trends

This is not a political blog and we try not to represent any political beliefs on this blog.  But, sometimes there is an eDiscovery component to the political story and it’s interesting to cover that component.  This is one of those times.

According to Bloomberg (Cohen Prosecutors Accept Neutral Review, Using Trump’s Words, written by Bob Van Voris and David Voreacos), prosecutors probing President Donald Trump’s lawyer said they are prepared to use a neutral outsider to review documents seized this month from the home and office of Michael Cohen, which was an about-face from the government’s initial plan to scrutinize the documents itself.

In a five-page letter to the judge last Thursday, prosecutors, referencing the president’s statement that Cohen was responsible for only “a tiny, tiny little fraction” of his legal work, argued that the special master’s document review could move swiftly.  Along with Cohen’s earlier acknowledgment that he had just three legal clients this year, that may have undermined the lawyer’s claim that the seized records may contain “thousands, if not millions” of privileged communications from clients, said former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.

In their filing, prosecutors said they now recommend a special master process proposed by retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas (a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York for 17 years and a frequent speaker at various conferences about eDiscovery trends and best practices) to weed out records that might be covered by the attorney-client privilege. They had previously asked that a separate team of prosecutors be permitted to review the documents first — a procedure routinely employed in other cases involving such materials.

“We believe that using Judge Maas or another neutral retired former Magistrate Judge familiar with this electronic discovery process and with experience in ruling on issues of privilege will lead to an expeditious and fair review of the materials obtained through the judicially authorized search warrants,” prosecutors said in a letter filed shortly before a court hearing scheduled for noon last Thursday.

In a separate letter filed with the court, Maas said that as special master he could analyze potential privileged materials through one of two methods. One would involve his review of a so-called privilege log, which would list all materials that any party says might be protected, as both Trump and Cohen have urged. The other would involve Maas directly reviewing the seized material himself to determine what may be privileged.

He preferred his own review, saying “privilege logs often are virtually useless as a tool to assist a judge or master, and their preparation is expensive and can cause delay.”

Prosecutors have said their probe is focused more on Cohen’s personal business and financial dealings than his legal work. They have seized documents relating to a 2016 payment made by a company Cohen set up to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, who claims to have had a tryst with Trump in 2006.

It will be interesting to see what happens from here.  And, of course, I’m talking about from an eDiscovery perspective, of course!  :o)

So, what do you think?  Should special master review to determine privilege be based on the documents themselves or should it be based on review of privilege logs?  As always, 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.