Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

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

Google Again Ordered to Produce Internationally Stored Data: eDiscovery Case Law

In the case In re: Search of Content that is Stored at Premises Controlled by Google, Case No. 16-80263 (N.D. Cali., Apr. 19, 2017), California Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, noting that the “SCA regulates disclosure of data in a service provider’s possession” ordered Google to “produce all content responsive to the search warrant that is retrievable from the United States, regardless of the data’s actual location”.

Case Background

A search warrant was issued in June 2016 that authorized production of information from specific Google email accounts regarding subscriber information, evidence of specified crimes, and information about the account holders’ true identities, locations, and assets.   Google did produce data “confirmed to be stored in the United States” including emails, but did not include the attachments for emails because they were not “confirmed” to be stored in the United States.  Google also moved to quash or amend the search warrant, which the government opposed, countering that the SCA authorizes production of data retrievable from the United States.

The court held a hearing in February 2017 and directed (1) the parties to submit a joint stipulation of undisputed facts relevant to the extraterritoriality analysis and (2) Google to provide information about its current ability to identify whether information is stored in the United States, given its representation at the hearing that it was finalizing a tool to identify whether or not content was stored in the United States.  The parties provided additional information in March.

Judge’s Ruling

As in the previous ruling against Google, Judge Beeler reviewed the Second Circuit ruling (Matter of Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 829 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2016)), where the Second Circuit denied the government’s efforts to compel Microsoft to provide emails in that case.  However, Judge Beeler noted that “the parties stipulate that the only place to access the information is in the United States” and stated that “the conduct relevant to the focus — and what the SCA seeks to regulate — is disclosure of the data in the service provider’s possession…The service provider — Google — is in the district and is subject to the court’s jurisdiction; the warrant is directed to it in the only place where it can access and deliver the information that the government seeks.”

Judge Beeler, in denying Google’s motion to quash the warrant for content that it stores outside the United States and ordering it to produce all content responsive to the search warrant that is retrievable from the United States, regardless of the data’s actual location, concluded that “the disclosure is a domestic application of the SCA”.

So, what do you think?  Should the location of the data or the location of the searches for the data determine whether it is subject to foreign data privacy considerations?  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.

Want to Find Malware in Your Network Sooner? Listen to Your Network: Cybersecurity Best Practices

One of the most telling statistics about cybersecurity and data breaches that we covered during Wednesday’s webcast was from last year’s Verizon Data Breach Incident Report which said that almost 93 percent of breach compromise incidents occur within minutes, with 11 percent of those occurring within seconds. But, less than 25 percent of those breaches are discovered within days.  Maybe your network traffic holds the key to detecting malware sooner.

According to this article in the Georgia Tech News Center by John Toon (with an assist by Sharon Nelson of the Ride the Lightning blog), security administrators could detect malware infections weeks or even months before they’re able to capture a sample of the invading malware by analyzing network traffic going to suspicious domains.  Findings in a new study illustrate the need for new malware-independent detection strategies that will give network defenders the ability to identify network security breaches in a timelier manner.

As the article notes, the strategy would take advantage of the fact that malware invaders need to communicate with their command and control computers, creating network traffic that can be detected and analyzed. Having an earlier warning of developing malware infections could enable quicker responses and potentially reduce the impact of attacks, the study’s researchers say.

In the study, Manos Antonakakis, an assistant professor in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Graduate Research Assistant Chaz Lever and colleagues analyzed more than 5 billion network events from nearly five years of network traffic carried by a major U.S. internet service provider (ISP). They also studied domain name server (DNS) requests made by nearly 27 million malware samples, and examined the timing for the re-registration of expired domains – which often provide the launch sites for malware attacks.

The researchers had hoped that the registration of previously expired domain names might provide a warning of impending attacks, but found there was often a lag of months between when expired domains were re-registered and attacks from them began.  The research required development of a filtering system to separate benign network traffic from malicious traffic in the ISP data.  By studying malware-related network traffic seen by the ISPs prior to detection of the malware, the researchers were able to determine that malware signals were present weeks and even months before new malicious software was found.

The chart above (courtesy of Georgia Tech) shows the time difference between when malware signals were detected in the network traffic of a major ISP and when the malware appeared on black lists.

In all, the researchers found more than 300,000 malware domains that were active for at least two weeks before the corresponding malware samples were identified and analyzed.  The participants hope their study will lead to development of new strategies for defending computer networks.

So, what do you think?  Could this become a breakthrough in defending against malware?  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.

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

Texas Supreme Court Denies Request for Mandamus Relief without Prejudice Over Native File Production: eDiscovery Case Law

In the case In Re State Farm Lloyds, Relator, Nos. 15-0903, 15-0905 (Tex. Sup. Ct. May 26, 2017), the Texas Supreme Court, in an opinion delivered by Justice Eva M. Guzman, denied the petitions for writ of mandamus without prejudice, “affording the relator an opportunity to reurge its discovery objections” (regarding the requesting party’s request for a native file production) to the trial court in light of its opinion.

Case Background

In this case which involved a homeowner’s insurance claim after hail storm damage, the parties met repeatedly and unsuccessfully to attempt to negotiate a protocol for the production of ESI, with format of production being among the primary issues as the requesting party (the homeowners) requested native file production from the producing party (State Farm) in this case.  The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the discovery issues, after which it granted the motion to compel native production of the ESI.  The court of appeals denied mandamus relief (we covered that ruling here), which led to State Farm’s appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.

Court Opinion

In the opinion delivered by Justice Guzman, the Court noted that “Under our discovery rules, neither party may dictate the form of electronic discovery. The requesting party must specify the desired form of production, but all discovery is subject to the proportionality overlay embedded in our discovery rules and inherent in the reasonableness standard to which our electronic-discovery rule is tethered.”

State Farm’s position was that it processes more than 35,000 new claims each day and, in the ordinary course of business, information related to those claims is routinely converted into static format and uploaded to its Enterprise Claims System (ECS), “the system of record” for claims handling at State Farm.  Its expert contended that ESI in “static format is easier to Bates number for discovery; allows efficient management of documents as exhibits at depositions, hearings, and trials; enables redaction, which is not possible with most native forms of ESI; and avoids intentional or unintentional alteration of the information, which may be difficult to detect or propagate further disputes about data integrity”.  The expert claimed that production in native form “would require State Farm to engineer a new process that includes determining upstream sources of the data, validating the upstream sources, determining whether native files of the information still exist, and developing an extraction method for the native versions.”  The expert did not quantify the time or expense involved, but claimed that “[t]hese additional steps would be an extraordinary and burdensome undertaking for State Farm” and are unnecessary because State Farm’s proffered production form is “reasonably usable.”

In asserting that searchable static format is not a “reasonably usable form,” the homeowners supported their proposed electronic discovery protocol with expert testimony that static images have less utility compared to native format, which would allow them to see formulas in Excel spreadsheets, search and sort the information by data fields, analyze the relationship of data, and see information in color that may not translate as accurately to stored or printed static images. Referring to static-form production as “the electronic equivalent of a print out,” the homeowner’s expert explained that useful metadata would not be viewable in static form, including tracked changes and commenting in Word documents; animations, other dynamic information, and speaker notes in static printouts of PowerPoint documents; and threading information in emails that would allow construction of a reasonable timeline related to State Farm’s processing of the homeowners’ claims.  Summarizing the homeowners’ position, the expert explained, “[W]e’re not imposing any additional duties, we’re only asking that they not be allowed to dumb down, to downgrade the data for production.”

The Court’s opinion noted that “Whether production of metadata-accessible forms is required on demand engages the interplay between the discovery limits in Rule 192.4 and production of electronic discovery under Rule 196.4” and also stated that “When a reasonably usable form is readily available in the ordinary course of business, the trial court must assess whether any enhanced burden or expense associated with a requested form is justified when weighed against the proportional needs of the case.” 

The Court also discussed the following seven factors when considering proportionality of the request: 1. Likely benefit of the requested discovery, 2. The needs of the case, 3. The amount in controversy, 4. The parties’ resources, 5. Importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, 6. The importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the litigation and 7. Any other articulable factor bearing on proportionality.  The Court also considered parity with Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and noted that “Rule 34’s plain language does not permit either party to unilaterally dictate the form of production for ESI.”

The Court concluded by stating:

“Today, we elucidate the guiding principles informing the exercise of discretion over electronic-discovery disputes, emphasizing that proportionality is the polestar. In doing so, we further a guiding tenet of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure: that litigants achieve a ‘just, fair, equitable and impartial adjudication . . . with as great expedition and dispatch and at the least expense . . . as may be practicable.’ Because the trial court and the parties lacked the benefit of our views on the matter, neither granting nor denying mandamus relief on the merits is appropriate. Accordingly, we deny the request for mandamus relief without prejudice to allow the relator to seek reconsideration by the trial court in light of this opinion.”

So, what do you think?  Do you agree with State Farm’s arguments that producing native format ESI would be “extraordinary and burdensome” and that its proposed production form is “reasonably usable.”?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

One footnote (literally): This opinion actually cited one of our blog posts in the footnotes, when discussing the relevance of metadata to the request – this post regarding how metadata played a key role in a $10.8 million whistleblower lawsuit verdict.

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 What You Need to Know About Cybersecurity and Data Privacy in 2017: Cybersecurity Best Practices

As we’ve recently noted (here and here), data breaches are happening within organizations at an alarming rate, and sensitive data is being compromised regularly.  It’s enough to make you wanna cry.  Here’s where you can find out what you can do to protect yourself, your firm and your client from becoming a victim and also what you need to do to keep up with ever-changing requirements for data security, both within the US and internationally.

Today at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine, along with our friends, the cybersecurity experts at Firm Guardian, LLC, will conduct the webcast What Attorneys Need to Know About Cybersecurity and Data Privacy in 2017.  This one-hour webcast will discuss what you need to know today about cybersecurity and data privacy to protect the sensitive data that your organization manages every day.  Examples of topics being discussed include:

  • The State of Cybersecurity in the U.S. in 2017
  • Top Threats Facing Your Practice
  • Your Responsibility to Your Clients: The High Cost of Data Leaks
  • How to Protect Your Firm and Your Clients
  • Recent Developments in International Data Privacy
  • Criteria for Evaluating Providers in Your eDiscovery Projects
  • Ethics Considerations
  • Looking Forward: The Future of Cybersecurity in the Legal Field

I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Julia Romero Peter, General Counsel and VP of Sales at CloudNine and joining us from Firm Guardian will be Sean Hall, CEO at Firm Guardian and Paul Cobb, the company’s COO.  The Firm Guardian team has over 30 years of combined experience dealing with foreign and domestic cyber-threats against government and military targets.  So, they have a lot of good information to share to help your organization combat those threats!

To register for the webcast, click here.  Don’t be this firm.

So, what do you think?  Do cybersecurity and data privacy concerns keep you up at night?  They did for this lawyer.  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.

Few States Still Have an Ethics Opinion Regarding Lawyer Cloud Usage: eDiscovery Best Practices

The Legal Technology Resource Center (LTRC) of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) web site has a great resource for those who want more information regarding a variety of technical topics, including the ethics for lawyers in using and storing client data in the cloud.  However, few states so far have published ethics opinions on the topic.

On their site in a page entitled Cloud Ethics Opinions Around the U.S., the ABA provides an interactive map of the states (see the image of it above), with the states that have published ethics opinions shown in blue.  On the actual site, you can either click on the state to scroll down to it or manually scroll down to the state by name alphabetically (more or less, the list has “Nevada” after “New Hampshire”, “New Jersey” and “New York”, just sayin’).  According to the ABA, here are the states that have published ethics opinions (with links to each state’s opinion):

If you counted, that’s 21* total states with opinions – less than half of the total state jurisdictions.  When we covered this three years ago, there were only 14 states at that time, so that’s at least some progress.

If you don’t feel like reading all of the opinions word for word, the ABA site provides two tabs below the interactive map:

  • Quick Reference tab that identifies whether cloud usage for client data is permitted (so far, all of the states listed above say “Yes”), the standard for use (currently all states with opinions enforce a reasonable care standard) and a bullet point list of specific requirements or recommendations;
  • Opinion Summaries tab that provides a brief summary for each of the opinions.

As the site notes, “in most opinions, the specific steps or factors listed are intended as non-binding recommendations or suggestions. Best practices may evolve depending on the sensitivity of the data or changes in the technology.”  Also, the site identifies opinions (Arizona, New Jersey and Washington to date) where the opinions address issues which aren’t directly labeled cloud computing or software as a service, but which share similar technology (e.g.. online backup and file storage).

Hopefully, more states will follow the examples of these 21 states and publish their own opinions soon.

*Thanks to Mark C. Palmer for pointing us to the opinion in Illinois!

So, what do you think? Are you surprised that more states don’t have published cloud ethics opinions?  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.

You Have to Be Certifiable to be Privacy Shield Approved: eDiscovery Trends

At a session at The Master’s Conference Chicago event this week, there was an entire session dedicated to international eDiscovery and privacy considerations.  Some of the discussion centered around the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is set to take effect next year (in almost exactly one year).  Most of the rest of the discussion centered around the EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Frameworks.

The EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Frameworks were designed by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the European Commission and Swiss Administration to provide companies on both sides of the Atlantic with a mechanism to comply with data protection requirements when transferring personal data from the European Union and Switzerland to the United States in support of transatlantic commerce.

On July 12, 2016, the European Commission deemed the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework adequate to enable data transfers under EU law (we covered the announcement of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield here and the formal adoption here). On January 12, 2017, the Swiss Government announced the approval of the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework as a valid legal mechanism to comply with Swiss requirements when transferring personal data from Switzerland to the United States (we covered that one too here).

The Privacy Shield Principles lay out a set of requirements governing participating organizations’ use and treatment of personal data received from the EU and Switzerland. By joining the Privacy Shield, participants make a commitment to comply with these Principles that is enforceable under U.S. law.  There are several benefits to becoming Privacy Shield certified, with the most important being that, as a participating organization, you are deemed to provide “adequate” privacy protection, which is a requirement for the transfer of personal data outside of the European Union under the EU Data Protection Directive and outside of Switzerland under the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection.

The Privacy Shield site is here and the page for U.S. businesses to understand the benefits and requirements of participation in the Privacy Shield is here.

If you go to this page here, you can actually search for companies that are Privacy Shield certified.  Surprisingly, only 2,150 organizations currently are certified at this point.  Of course, in the eDiscovery world, a lot of those organizations may not matter to you, so Rob Robinson (in his Complex Discovery blog) was kind enough to identify here the eDiscovery providers that are currently certified (he also includes PDF copies of both Privacy Shield Frameworks).  According to the list, there are 45 eDiscovery companies that are EU-U.S. Privacy Shield approved, of which only 17 are also Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield certified.  CloudNine is both EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield certified.  Rob does note that the list may not be all inclusive, so check the link at the beginning of this paragraph if you have questions about a particular eDiscovery provider.

International data privacy issues and frameworks are one of the topics we’ll be discussing at our webcast on Wednesday, May 31.  For more info on where to register, click here.

So, what do you think?  Has your organization become Privacy Shield certified?  As always, 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 next Tuesday.

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.

Where Does One Find Bitcoin to Pay the Hacker When Your Computer is Locked? An ATM, Of Course!: Cybersecurity Trends

Needless to say, cybersecurity and its challenges have become even more of a hot topic than ever, with ransomware stories becoming more prevalent (here are two stories we’ve covered in just the last two weeks).  If you want to learn more about how to prevent ransomware attacks, read below.  Regardless, based on a recent article, the currency used to pay those hackers their ransom is easier to come by than ever.

In the Ride the Lightning blog (Yes, You Can Get Bitcoins from an ATM), Sharon Nelson notes that she discovered a Bitcoin ATM in her local Shell station, which came with a sheet of instructions (replicated on her company site here).  The sheet of instructions includes a list of other places where you can find Bitcoin ATMs in the D.C. Metro area including other gas stations, two laundromats and a falafel shop.  Sharon took a photo of the ATM, which is displayed in her blog via the link above.

For those who don’t know, Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency and a digital payment system that was released as open-source software in 2009.  According to Wikipedia, over 100,000 merchants and vendors accept bitcoin as payment as of February 2015.

There’s even a site where you can get started with Bitcoin, which says “Bitcoin isn’t owned by anyone. Think of it like email. Anyone can use it, but there isn’t a single company that is in charge of it. Bitcoin transactions are irreversible. This means that no one, including banks, or governments can block you from sending or receiving bitcoins with anyone else, anywhere in the world. With this freedom comes the great responsibility of not having any central authority to complain to if something goes wrong. Just like physical cash, don’t let strangers hold your bitcoins for you, and don’t send them to untrustworthy people on the internet.”

Like cyber-hackers who hold your data for ransom, perhaps?

There’s even an investment market for Bitcoin.  Ars Technica published an article yesterday that noted that the price of Bitcoin has doubled just in 2017 and that a Marketwatch analysis showed that an investment of $1,000 USD in Bitcoin in July 2010 would be worth more than $35 million today!  Wow!

Hopefully, you only have to find out about Bitcoin for investment purposes, not because some cyber-hacker forced you to do so.  Ransomware attacks, and what to do about them is one of the topics we’ll be discussing at our webcast on Wednesday, May 31.  For more info on where to register, click here.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever owned Bitcoin or been involved in a Bitcoin transaction?  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.

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

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests: eDiscovery Case Law

In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et. al. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverages Commission, et. al., No. 15-00134 (W.D. Texas, Apr. 10, 2017), Texas Magistrate Judge Andrew W. Austin (no relation) denied the defendant’s motion to overrule the plaintiff’s objections to the defendant’s discovery requests, due to the fact that the plaintiff stated it was withholding documents based on each of the objections.

Case Background

In this dispute over the restriction of public companies to sell liquor in Texas, Judge Austin, after conducting a hearing to discuss the parties’ discovery dispute, noted “There was quite a bit of confusion at the hearing about precisely what relief TPSA is requesting in this motion.”  Ultimately, it was determined that the defendant was requesting the Court to overrule objections made by the plaintiff to each of the requests for production, which it assumed would mean that the plaintiff would be under “compulsion” to produce responsive documents, and any disagreements about the actual production could be addressed at that time.

Judge Austin also noted that the “cause of the confusion is not one-sided”, in that much of the confusion stemmed from the plaintiff’s “overabundance of caution” in responding under the new discovery rules, which now require that when a party makes an objection, it also state whether it is withholding any documents subject to that objection. In every one of its responses to the defendant’s requests, the plaintiff leveled one or more objection, and in each instance it stated that it is withholding documents pursuant to that objection.  As a result, the defendant was concerned that there were identified, responsive documents sitting on plaintiff’s counsel’s desk that had not been produced, any of which could be a “bombshell.”

In an exchange with plaintiff’s counsel for clarification, Judge Austin determined that the plaintiff had indicated it was withholding documents pursuant to each objection even if the plaintiff determined that the request was too broad and of such marginal relevance to even merit a search to find responsive documents and that the plaintiff expected it was likely that there were some responsive documents in its many offices and on its computer networks and that some of these documents would likely be privileged attorney client communications or work product.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the plaintiff’s statement that it was “withholding documents based on these objections”, Judge Austin noted that while it “may technically be accurate, it is not what the new rules were after in adding the requirement in Rule 34(b)(2)(C) that ‘an objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of the objection.’”   Judge Austin indicated that “A more helpful response would have been something along the lines of ‘Based on these objections, Wal-Mart has not conducted a search for responsive documents, and while it is likely that some responsive documents may exist, Wal-Mart has not identified any such document, and is not withholding any identified document as a result of these objections.’”

Judge Austin also stated: “For most of the RFPs, Wal-Mart responded that it had already collected and produced documents in response to similar requests from the TABC, based on agreed upon search parameters, and would produce the same documents to TPSA. Further, Wal-Mart stated that it would conduct an additional limited search of additional document sources, but would otherwise not search further. TPSA failed to state in its briefs, or at the hearing, what it believed was deficient with this response. In fact, when asked at the hearing, TPSA was unable to point to a single additional document that would be responsive to its requests it believed had not already been produced. Despite this, TPSA continued to maintain that overruling Plaintiffs’ objections would solve this discovery dispute.”  Disagreeing, Judge Austin denied the defendant’s motion to compel.

So, what do you think?  Was the judge’s suggestion for handling objections in this case helpful?  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 Chicago Today: eDiscovery Trends

For the second year in a row, I’m participating in The Master’s Conference 2017 Chicago event, which happens to be today.  If you’re in the Chicago area today, join me 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 Chicago event – “Deep Dish Data with Only Chopsticks to Manage It” – 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 Wyndham Grand Riverfront, 71 E Upper Wacker Dr, Chicago, IL 60601.  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 1:45pm.  I will be moderating a panel that includes Matt Wolfe, Commercial Litigator with Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., Ryan Tilot, Counsel with Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Mykhaylo Bulyk, Cyber Intelligence/Incident Response Manager for CDK Global.

Our panel discussion will discuss how big data is impacting today’s litigation landscape, the use of non-traditional tools and approaches, how more and more organizations are conducting “data discovery” pre-litigation and the impact of big data on cybersecurity.  It should be a very informative discussion with a very knowledgeable panel!  Hope you can join us!

Click here to register for the conference.  It’s a day well spent with sessions all day long, including the keynote at lunch.

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

So, what do you think?  Are you in Chicago today?  If so, 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.