Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

With Ample Evidence of Bad Faith, Court Sanctions Defendant for Failure to Produce Documents: eDiscovery Case Law

In CrossFit, Inc. v. Nat’l Strength and Conditioning Assn., No. 14cv1191 JLS (KSC) (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2017), California District Judge Janis L. Sammartino granted the plaintiff’s motion for several issue, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions, but denied the plaintiff’s request for terminating sanctions due to the defendant’s bad faith that resulted in the defendant’s failure to produce documents.

Case Background

In this case between competing fitness training organizations where the plaintiff argued that the defendant published a false study regarding the plaintiff’s program and injury rates of its participants, the defendant filed a separate suit in state court against the plaintiff alleging trade libel, defamation, and unfair business practices.  The plaintiff received discovery during the state-court action that appeared to either directly respond to discovery or contradict assertions the defendant deponents had made in this case. The plaintiff then deposed the defendant’s Education Coordinator in the state-court case, during which he admitted that several of the statements in his federal-action declaration, submitted under penalty of perjury, were false.  The plaintiff then “ran several controlled searches in the state-court production” which “yielded hundreds of documents material to the issues in this action and that the defendant should have produced in response to the plaintiff’s discovery requests in this case.

Given that pretrial proceedings were only several weeks away at the time the plaintiff discovered these documents, the plaintiff simultaneously moved to continue the pretrial proceedings and for sanctions against the defendant, including terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, issue, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Sammartino, indicating that the documents withheld “are too numerous to comprehensively catalog”, provided several examples in her order, including various emails, a 2013 executive summary and “[d]ocuments that affirmatively demonstrate Mr. Clayton’s perjury”.  Judge Sammartino indicated that Rule 37 “authorizes the district court, in its discretion, to impose a wide range of sanctions” and that district courts have inherent power to “impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal… However, because dismissal is such a severe remedy it should be imposed only in extreme circumstances, and “only where the violation is ‘due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.’”

Detailing several of the defendant’s transgressions, Judge Sammartino stated that “the Court agrees with Plaintiff that there is ample evidence of willfulness, bad faith, or fault.”  Judge Sammartino also noted that “nearly every factor weighs in favor of imposing terminating sanctions” and concluded that the Court “is well within its discretion to award terminating sanctions”, but declined to do so, opting for issue, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions instead.  However, before even getting to those, Judge Sammartino awarded these sanctions to address concerns regarding whether the defendant had produced all relevant documents:

“(1) Plaintiff SHALL commission a neutral forensic analysis of the the defendant’s servers and Defendant SHALL pay all costs relating to such forensic analysis;

(2) Defendant SHALL within fourteen days, under penalty of perjury, acquire declarations from all relevant the defendant personnel either (a) assuring or reaffirming that no documents relevant to this litigation have been destroyed or (b) admitting to any destruction;

(3) If at the conclusion of the neutral forensic evaluation it appears that documents have been destroyed, or that the discovery misconduct is substantially greater than the scope of which Plaintiff is currently aware, Plaintiff is GRANTED LEAVE TO RENEW its Motion for Terminating Sanctions and present the newly discovered evidence; and

(4) Defendant SHALL LODGE within fourteen days a copy of the document referenced in Plaintiff’s Sanction Motion Exhibit A so that the Court may conduct an in camera review of the document. Additionally, Plaintiff SHALL PROVIDE a copy of this Order to the neutral forensic analyst so that she may search for other instances of the document referenced in Exhibit A—or its deletion—and any surrounding context.”

The plaintiff supplied a list of thirty potential issue and adverse inference sanctions and Judge Sammartino awarded 17 of them in her order.  In addition, Judge Sammartino, while deducting some costs, awarded $73,550.83 in fees to the plaintiff in connection with its Sanctions Motion and ex parte Continuance.

So, what do you think?  Should the judge have gone ahead and ordered terminating sanctions based on the defendant’s actions to date?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Daily will resume with new posts on Wednesday, July 5.  Happy Independence Day!

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.

For Those in Houston, Here’s a Terrific Conference Coming Up From WiE: eDiscovery Trends

Whee!  If you’re in Houston or will be on July 20 (three weeks from today), the Women in eDiscovery (WiE), Houston Chapter in partnership with South Texas College of Law will be hosting an all-day eDiscovery conference you can check out.  Even better, it’s free to attend!

On that day, WiE Houston will be hosting the inaugural eDiscovery “Legal Technology Showcase & Conference” at South Texas College of Law in downtown Houston.  The one-day event brings together legal thought leadership, innovative technology providers, practitioners, legal support staff and law school students and will be open to anyone with interest in checking out some of the available eDiscovery technology solutions available and hearing some interesting discussions regarding a variety of eDiscovery topics.

The conference will feature a keynote address by Casey Flaherty, former in-house counsel at Kia Motors and creator of the service Delivery Review.  Additional panel sessions will be held on the following topics (schedule included below):

  • State of the Industry: Data and insight from industry leaders on the latest trends and advances in technology.
  • Legal Operations and Litigation Support: Global perspectives from corporate legal and law firms.
  • How the Internet Of Things (IOT) Impacts Forensics and Data Collection: The developing scope of data collection and intersection of technology.

The total course curriculum has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of Texas Committee on MCLE in the amount of 3.5 credit hours.  So, it’s free AND you get CLE credit, to boot.  And, the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists (ACEDS) is giving away a $2,000 scholarship, so you could earn CEDS certification for free!

CloudNine is one of several sponsors of the event and I’m delighted to be participating in the “State of the Industry” panel, along with Lana Schell from ONE Discovery (who will be moderating), Michele Lange of KrolLDiscovery, Lynn Frances Jae of iCONECT and Richard Dilgren of Fronteo.  My CloudNine colleague, Karen DeSouza (a WiE member herself) will be moderating the second panel session, with Blaine Edwards of Superior Energy Services, Gail Foster of Baker Botts, LaTonya Warner of Waste Management and Thom Wisinski of Haynes and Boone.  The third panel will be moderated by Scott Zimmerman of Haynes and Boone, with Paul Price of Beyond IT, Sheryl Falk of Winston & Strawn and David Greetham of Ricoh USA.  Quite a knowledgeable collection of speakers!

In between sessions and the keynote, there will be exhibit hall time to check out the exhibitors and their offerings.  And, there is a happy hour in the evening, as well, to network with the folks who attend.

Attendance is limited, so you’ll want to register sooner rather than later to make sure you can get in.  Here is the link to the site for more information and to register for the event.  Hope to see you there!

So, what do you think?  Are you going to be in Houston on July 20?  Then, come join us!  And, as always, 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. 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’s the Day to Learn Why There Has Never Been a Better Time to Embrace eDiscovery: eDiscovery Trends

State of the art eDiscovery technology used to be only available to the largest law firms and corporations. Smaller firms and organizations were essentially priced out of the market and couldn’t afford the solutions that could be used by the “big boys” to manage their discovery workloads. Thankfully, times have changed – thanks to cloud-based, software-as-a-service (“SaaS”) automated solutions that have made full-featured eDiscovery solutions affordable for even small and solo firms.  Today, you have an opportunity to find out how to take advantage of that.

Today at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast How SaaS Automation Has Revolutionized eDiscovery for Solo and Small Firms.  This one-hour webcast will discuss how SaaS automation technology has revolutionized eDiscovery for solo and small firms today and why there has never been a better time for those firms to embrace eDiscovery.  Examples of topics being discussed include:

  • How Automation and the Cloud is Affecting All Industries, including eDiscovery
  • Drivers for the eDiscovery Automation Revolution
  • The Impact of Automation and the Cloud on the Lawyer Job Market
  • The Evolution of eDiscovery Technology
  • Whip Me, Beat Me, Call Me EDna: Two Challenges, Seven Years Apart
  • Key Components of a SaaS eDiscovery Automation Solution
  • Cost Alternatives for SaaS eDiscovery Automation Solutions
  • Can Automation Really Disrupt the eDiscovery Industry?

I’ll be presenting today’s webcast, along with Karen DeSouza, Director of Review Services at CloudNine, and we will discuss why there has never been a better time for small firms to embrace eDiscovery, as well as how to simplify discovery for any firm or organization.  To register for today’s webcast, click here.

So, what do you think?  Are you a small firm struggling to get control of eDiscovery, at a price your firm can afford?  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. 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.

Anthem Agrees to Pay Over $100 Million to Settle Data Breach Lawsuit: Cybersecurity Trends

One of the most notable data breaches in recent years was the one suffered by health insurer Anthem involving the personal information of nearly 80 million individuals.  It looks like they are going to pay up big to make the class-action lawsuit that was filed in response to that massive data breach go away.

MedCity News (Anthem to pay record $115 million to settle data breach lawsuit, by Erin Dietsche), reports that the settlement must still be approved by a court, but if it is, it will stand as the biggest data breach settlement in history.

Back in 2015, the Indianapolis, Indiana-based insurer was the victim of a cyberattack that involved the Social Security numbers, birthdates, addresses and healthcare ID numbers of 78.8 million people. At that time, Anthem said in a statement, it provided two years of credit monitoring and identity protection services to all impacted individuals.

Nonetheless, more than 100 lawsuits were filed against Anthem that were eventually consolidated.

As part of the $115 million settlement, Anthem will give data breach victims at least two years of credit monitoring and provide cash compensation for individuals who already enrolled in credit monitoring. The health insurer will also cover the out-of-pocket expenses victims have incurred as a result of the data breach.

On top of that, Anthem has to allocate a certain amount of money for security purposes and make specific changes to its data security systems.

In a statement, the insurer said the settlement “does not include any finding of wrongdoing.” Anthem added that it “is not admitting any wrongdoing or that any individuals were harmed as a result of the cyberattack.”

Anthem continued: “Nevertheless, we are pleased to be putting this litigation behind us, and to be providing additional substantial benefits to individuals whose data was or may have been involved in the cyberattack and who will now be members of the settlement class.”

In a related article by the same author, it appears that Google has begun removing people’s private medical records from its Search results.  Maybe it will soon be more difficult to find (intentionally or inadvertently) someone’s medical records online.

So, what do you think?  Is this the start of a trend?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

BTW, if you’re a member of a solo or small law firm or want to learn how to simplify the discovery process, feel free to check tomorrow’s webcast!

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 Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Legal Right Supersedes Physical Possession When It Comes to Control of ESI, Court Rules: eDiscovery Case Law

In First American Bankcard, Inc. v. Smart Business Technology, Inc., et. al., No. 15-638 (E.D. La., May 24, 2017), Louisiana Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. granted the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery and for Reasonable Expenses against one of the defendants in “substantial part” with regard to interrogatories and requests for production of ESI within physical possession of the former owners of the defendant company, but denied “in limited part” with regard to the plaintiff’s request to take forensic imaging of the defendant company’s computer system, because “neither the relevance nor the proportionality of the forensic imaging sought by this request are readily apparent to the court”.

Case Background

In this case regarding damages the plaintiff allegedly incurred as a result of “deficient and defective” software design, manufacture and hosting of software products for use by plaintiff in processing cash advance and check cashing at casinos, the plaintiff served discovery requests, including document requests upon one defendant – Smart Business Technology, Inc. (Smart).  After determining Smart’s responses and objections to be lacking, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel and for Reasonable Expenses to obtain additional responses to certain interrogatories and certain document requests.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Wilkinson granted the motion with regard to the plaintiff’s Interrogatories, overruling all objections and stating that “defendant has offered nothing sufficient to support or establish its objections on grounds of disproportionality and undue burden and expense outweighing the likely benefit of this highly relevant discovery.”

With regard to the defendant’s objections to producing requested ESI because it “does not have possession of the requested data” because it “is no longer a going concern” and, upon its business demise, the materials “remained in the hands of [its] former owners and top officers, co-defendants Fuente and Romero”, Judge Wilkinson stated that “[t]his argument is unpersuasive for two reasons… First, because defendant did not assert this argument in its Rule 34(b) written responses, the objection has been waived… Second, a party’s obligation to produce materials in the Rule 34 production and inspection process extends beyond mere possession. Defendant’s obligation is to produce such materials or electronically stored information (“ESI”) that are within its possession, custody or control…Rule 34’s definition of possession, custody, or control, includes more than actual possession or control of [documents]; it also contemplates a party’s legal right or practical ability to obtain [documents] from a [non-party] to the action.”

With regard to the plaintiff’s request to take forensic imaging of the defendant company’s computer system, Judge Wilkinson stated that the “motion is denied, at least at this time”, noting that “[u]nlike the discovery that is the subject of the interrogatories and requests for production addressed above, neither the relevance nor the proportionality of the forensic imaging sought by this request are readily apparent to the court.”

So, what do you think?  What does “possession, custody or control” mean to you?  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. 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.

We Get By With a Little Help From Our Friends: eDiscovery Trends

If you’re in or near my age bracket, you probably remember the similarly titled song by The Beatles (though I actually like the Joe Cocker version better – a rare Beatles re-make that could be argued to be better than the original).  Feel free to debate me on that – after you’ve watched his Woodstock rendition.  Anyway, for any provider working in eDiscovery today (whether law firm or eDiscovery software/service provider), there are instances where working with a partner just makes sense.

The LegalTech News article (Partnering for Success: The Role of the Partnership in Legal Tech, written by Gabrielle Orum Hernández, free subscription required), profiles the expansion of CloudNine’s partner program with our recently announced Alliance Partner Program expansion.  The program allows qualified and approved organizations to enrich the business value and technology competitiveness of their eDiscovery solutions through the integration, referral, and resell of CloudNine software and services.

CloudNine CEO Brad Jenkins told Legaltech News that the partner program is an attempt to leverage some of the strong loyalties and connections that exist within the legal sphere by essentially paying to develop relationships. “Probably the biggest reason [for the partner program expansion] is we have found that in this industry it very much falls into relationship-selling a lot of times,” he said.

The CloudNine Alliance Partner Program consists of three categories of partners:

  1. Technology Partners: Data and legal discovery developers who work with CloudNine to develop, integrate, and deploy solutions leveraging CloudNine technology. The business benefit for technology partners is the extension of their capability to access new customers and new markets.
  2. Referral Partners: Data and legal discovery consultants and providers who recommend CloudNine software and services to their customers. The business benefit for referral partners is direct compensation for the introduction and acceptance of CloudNine by end users.
  3. Channel Partners: Data and legal discovery service providers who sell CloudNine software and services to their customers as part of their portfolio of offerings. The business benefit for channel partners is the ability to resell CloudNine software and services as part of their solutions. CloudNine has long had an extensive channel partner network.

In her article, Hernández mentions several other companies that have made use of the partner model, including kCura (which is a CloudNine technology partner), Neota Logic and HighQ, and Discovia and Brainspace.

In noting that the partnership model allows eDiscovery adjacent companies to offer legal organizations the option of unbundling pieces of their service, Jenkins said “It’s a value-add, a way to meet the needs of the market that’s shifting to the self-service model…What we’ve been able to do is augment the tools that these companies have because now they can still leverage Relativity or their own product, but they have tools like ours which significantly reduce the cost and time of getting those smaller data sets, the day-in, day-out type of projects, in.”

So, if you’re a provider of eDiscovery services today, large or small, sometimes you get by with a little help from your friends.

To schedule a discussion about the CloudNine Alliance Partner Program or to sign up for a free trial of CloudNine’s eDiscovery Platform, contact us at 713.462.3885, info@cloudnine.com, or at cloudnine.com.

BTW, if you’re a member of a solo or small law firm or want to learn how to simplify the discovery process, feel free to check this upcoming webcast!

So, what do you think?  Does your organization work partner with other companies to provide software or services?  As always, 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. 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.

This New Pilot Program Can Speed Up Discovery, Especially in Arizona and Illinois: eDiscovery Best Practices

At its meeting in September of 2016, the Judicial Conference of the United States approved a pilot program to test procedures requiring mandatory initial discovery before the commencement of party-directed discovery in civil cases.  Now, that pilot program – the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Program – is already in use in Arizona and Illinois.

The Mandatory Initial Discovery (MIDPP) Pilot Program has been designed to test whether early substantial disclosure of information can reduce litigation costs and shorten the time for case resolution consistent with the goals of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires the court and the parties to employ the rules “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of every case.

As noted in the Above the Law article (Holy Early Discovery, Batman! You’ll Want To Know About This, written by Kelly Twigger), the District of Arizona (effective May 1) and the Northern District of Illinois (effective June 1) “have adopted the MID pilot project for three years. The pilot requires parties to produce all discovery in support of their case (consistent with Rule 26(a)) but ALSO all discovery that is relevant to the opposing parties’ claims and/or defenses. And wait, it gets better — responses have to be filed within 30 days of filing an answer (which everyone now has to do) and documents must be produced 40 days later.”

And, as the description “mandatory” implies, the MIDPP will apply to all civil cases in the volunteer courts, subject to certain specific exemptions.  According to Twigger, those exemptions are “pro se cases, PLSRA matters, MDL matters, and patent cases.”

The Federal Judicial Center site provides several resources regarding the MID Pilot program here, including:

There is also a Checklist page and a Users’ Manual page that provides a general checklist and user’s manual for the MIDPP, as well as specific checklists and user’s manuals for the District of Arizona and the Northern District of Illinois.

So, what do you think?  Will the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Program lead to a speedier and more proportional discovery cycle?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Give yourself a pat on the back if you recognize the movie where the graphic came from – Copyright © Paramount Pictures.  Don’t recognize it?  Surely, you can’t be serious!

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 Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

In a Second Case, Judge Specifies Search Terms for Parties to Use: eDiscovery Case Law

In Abbott v. Wyoming Cty. Sheriff’s Office, No. 15-CV-531W (W.D.N.Y. May 16, 2017), New York Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel and defendant’s cross-motion in part, ordering the defendant to perform additional production over a disputed time period, based on a list of search terms ordered by Judge Scott.

Case Background

In this case concerning allegations that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of promotions and work shifts or assignments that she was otherwise eligible to receive, for no reason other than her medical condition of epilepsy, the plaintiff (in February 2016) requested all emails sent and received by three key custodians “from September 2009 through the present, in native, electronic format, subject to an agreement of the parties regarding search terms.”  The defendant responded in September 2016, producing approximately 1,004 pages of responsive email messages and a privilege log containing 369 separate entries.

That request appeared to be fulfilled until the plaintiff’s deposition in February 2017, during which the plaintiff described discrimination and retaliation occurring through the present time. The description of ongoing improper conduct prompted the suspension of her deposition and different protests from each side. The defendant protested that the plaintiff did not describe ongoing conduct in her responses to its interrogatories, while the plaintiff protested that the defendant’s response to the plaintiff’s request did not include any email messages dated after February 2016. The pending cross-motions soon followed.

Judge’s Ruling

In looking at the complaint and the plaintiff’s second supplemental response, prepared after the start of the plaintiff’s deposition, Judge Scott noted that the plaintiff “mentions only two specific events that occurred after any produced email messages dated from February 2016”: “a denial of transport duties that occurred as recently as February 9, 2017; and an inability to apply for a sergeant’s position in July 2016”, along with a few written warnings.

Observing that the request “does not have to be revisited for any other topics”, Judge Scott stated that “[o]n at least one prior occasion, the Court has crafted discovery production based on specific search terms” – Armstrong Pump, Inc. v. Hartman, No. 10-CV-446S (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2014), which we covered here.  As a result, Judge Scott ordered the defendant to “supplement its response to Request 15 by searching for email messages dated between March 1, 2016 and May 1, 2017 that contain Abbott’s name, or any name mentioned in her second supplemental response, plus any of the following search terms:

  • sergeant
  • cell phone
  • control room
  • booking
  • transport
  • court hours
  • late OR lateness
  • surveillance OR camera”

Judge Scott denied the plaintiff’s motion “to the extent that it seeks any other relief”, observing that “[e]ven with allegations of ongoing retaliation, defendants at some point need to have some finality about what they are facing.”

So, what do you think?  Should courts craft search terms for parties to use in litigation?  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. 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 Denver Today: eDiscovery Trends

Ain’t no mountain high enough!  Today, CloudNine is participating in The Master’s Conference 2017 Denver event.  If you’re in the Denver area today, join my colleague Julia Romero Peter and other legal technology experts and professionals at The Master’s Conference event for a full day of educational sessions covering a wide range of topics!

The Master’s 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 Denver event – “Rocky Career? Facing Mountains Of Data Challenges?” – covers topics ranging from technology evaluations to forces changing eDiscovery to analytics and social media discovery.  Cybersecurity and data privacy are covered too.

The event will be held at NATIV Hotel, 1612 Wazee St, Denver, CO 80202.  Registration begins at 8am, with sessions starting right after that, at 8:30am.

CloudNine will be sponsoring the session Data, Discovery, and Decisions: Extending Discovery From Collection To Creation at 11:15am.  Julia, our General Counsel and VP of Sales, will be moderating a panel that includes Kelly Twigger, Founder of ESI Attorneys, Michael Burg, Corporate Counsel at Dish Network and Shawn Huston, Managing Partner at LSP Data Solutions LLC.

Their panel discussion will focus on objective of data discovery through Legal Discovery, a framework for approaching discovery, process challenges and technical hurdles and outside the box challenges and solutions.  It should be a very informative discussion with a very knowledgeable panel!  Hope you can join them!

Click here to register for the conference.  It’s a day well spent with sessions all day long, including the keynote at lunch by the Honorable Craig B. Shaffer, U.S. Magistrate Judge in Denver.

This year, The Master’s Conference also has events scheduled for New York City, London(!), Washington DC and Orlando.  Click here for more information on remaining scheduled events for the year.

BTW, if you’re a member of a solo or small law firm or want to learn how to simplify the discovery process, feel free to check this upcoming webcast!

So, what do you think?  Are you in Denver today?  If so, check it out!  And, as always, 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. 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.

Personnel, Not Technology the Biggest Factor Prohibiting Business Value from Long-Term Digital Info: eDiscovery Trends

In this era of big data, an organization’s ability to govern and preserve digital information, especially long-term digital information, is key. Earlier this month, the Information Governance Initiative (IGI), working closely with IGI Supporter Preservica, provided a benchmark of the state of the industry on the critical issue of governing and preserving long-term digital information.  Let’s take a look.

In its second annual survey of IG professionals regarding the use of long-term digital information (i.e., longer than ten years), IGI and Preservica had several interesting findings.  Last year, their benchmark report illustrated an interesting finding that virtually every responding organization (98%) needs digital information for longer than ten years, but very few (16%) have a viable approach.  This year’s survey had some interesting findings as well, such as:

  • The vast majority of responding organizations (83%) realize (or plan to realize) direct business value from their long-term digital information, targeting areas like market analysis, product development, and customer service;
  • The top 3 challenges preventing organizations from getting business value from their long-term digital information are: 1) Lack of personnel dedicated to the issue, 2) Organizations capability in this area is informal or immature, and 3) Organizations lack the proper tools or technology;
  • Not surprisingly, IG professionals indicated that the C-Suite is affected the most by failure to effectively govern and preserve digital information, with CEOs, General Counsels, heads of Records Management, CIOs, and Boards of Directors are those most affected by failure in this area;
  • Business functions most requiring long-term digital information included Legal operations (79% of respondents), Financial management (67%), HR management (64%) and IP management (48%);
  • Business applications most containing long-term digital information included Collaboration environments (80% of respondents), Accounting systems (75%), Contract management systems (71%), Transactional systems (58%), Messaging systems (55%) and Case management systems (54%);
  • The most critical capabilities to preserving and governing long-term digital information are Ensuring readability and usability of information (89%), Proving authenticity and trustworthiness (79%), Supporting records retention and disposition requirements (79%), Providing secure access and discovery to business users (62%), Conformance with standards for digital preservation (59%) and Automated transfer of records from operational systems to long-term digital preservation systems (51%).

To see a summary and download a copy of the Infographics for this report, click here (signup required, but it’s free).

So, what do you think?  Are you surprised the extent of the need for digital information longer than ten years?  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. 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.