Close
Enter your
text here

Industry Trends

Someone Else’s Money – eDiscovery Best Practices

Leave it to Craig Ball to liken lawyers’ delegation of eDiscovery to Prince Akeem’s “royal backside wipers” in the Eddie Murphy movie Coming to America.

In Craig’s blog post E-Discovery and the Zamundan Royal Backside Wipers, he notes “everywhere I’m met with the attitude that electronic discovery isn’t a lawyer’s concern:  ‘It’s something you hire people to do,’ they say.”

“Certainly, we must hire people to do things we cannot possibly do.  But I contend that we hire people to do many things we could learn to do ourselves, and do economically.  Remember Eddie Murphy’s royal backside wipers in Coming to America? All it takes is money to burn; and if it’s someone else’s money, who really cares?”

The problem, as Craig notes, is that lawyers who refuse to educate themselves on eDiscovery and IT concepts run the risk that they may “go the way of the local bookseller and video rental shop”.  “Clients will not pay for Royal Wipers forever, and we should not ask them to do so.”

Craig then proceeds to provide five categories (with over 40 sub-categories) of “top-of-my-head list of lawyer duties” for eDiscovery.  It’s a great list and I won’t steal his thunder – you can click on the link above to view his post and the list.

Working for an eDiscovery provider, you might think that we prefer lawyers to remain ignorant regarding eDiscovery and turn everything over to us.  In fact, I find we get more work from attorneys that understand and appreciate the importance of managing eDiscovery effectively.  Those who understand the issues associated with electronic files, that processing files require a sound process, that you should test your search terms early and that cloud-based eDiscovery is secure are the attorneys who make the best clients as they understand the benefits of the services we provide.  Knowledge is power!

Craig finishes his post relaying the story of a recent speech, where afterward, he was approached by a woman who had expressed “frustration that IT folks use a lot of jargon and initialism when they discuss their work”, to which Craig noted that “perhaps lawyers should learn to speak a little geek”.  “[I]f you’re going to live in France, it makes sense to gain a little fluency in French.”

If not, you may find yourself a bit behind.  Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

So, what do you think?  What do you do to educate yourself on eDiscovery best practices?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

For more of Craig’s thoughts about lawyers and eDiscovery education, check out his three-part thought leader interview from earlier this year.

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

New Survey Sheds Light on How Corporate Legal Departments Handle Outsourcing – eDiscovery Trends

These days, it seems as though every company is outsourcing work overseas.  Are corporate legal departments following suit?

Only to a point, according to a new survey available from ALM Legal Intelligence and discussed on David Hechler’s article on Corporate Counsel (The 2013 Legal Process Outsourcing Survey).  According to the article, “The LPO industry is like sex: There’s plenty of talk about it, but no one knows what goes on behind closed doors. Vendors will tell you that it’s really taking off—or is about to. They cite numbers in the billions of dollars, but these always seem to be projections.”

So, as the author notes, “we decided to ask corporate law departments (but not their law firms) to tell us about their experiences. We created an online survey and sent it out to lots of departments. We also posted links on CorpCounsel.com and invited readers to click in. And we asked not only whether they’ve made the leap, but, for those who have, where they’re sending work, what kind of work they outsource, what motivated them, and how they feel about the results.”

Here are some of the published results:

  • 54 percent of the respondents have outsourced legal work at some point;
  • Of the respondents who have outsourced legal work, 26 percent were “very satisfied” with the results, 41 percent were “satisfied”, 29 percent were “somewhat satisfied” and only 3 percent were “not at all satisfied” – meaning that over 2/3 of the respondents were at least satisfied with the work performed;
  • 65 percent of the respondents who have outsourced legal work have only done so within the US, while 35 percent have outsourced abroad (64 percent of those have sent work to India);
  • Document review and electronic discovery were the most frequently cited types of work being outsourced;
  • Asked why they outsourced legal work, fully 35 percent said “to test the idea.” This was the third most common reason, behind “lowering costs” and “reducing the time required to complete the work.”

Based on the survey, it appears that, while more organizations outsource legal work than don’t, most still haven’t dipped their toe in overseas waters (at least yet).

The full survey is available from ALM Legal Intelligence here for $599.

So, what do you think?  Did you expect overseas outsourcing to be more prevalent?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Need to Better Understand Litigation? This White Paper is for You – eDiscovery Best Practices

If you enjoyed Jane Gennarelli’s Litigation 101 for eDiscovery Tech Professionals series that was published recently on this blog, now you can get that same information (and more) in a consolidated, easy-to-reference white paper!

The white paper, entitled An Introduction to Litigation for eDiscovery Professionals, covers many of the things that litigation support professionals need to know to provide greater value to the attorneys that they support, including:

  • Bare-Boned Basics of different types of litigation;
  • Types of Legal Documents;
  • Types of Parties involved in a case;
  • Determining Jurisdiction for the case;
  • Initiating the Case and Defendant’s Response, which could include their own claims filed;
  • Establishing Guidelines via Meet and Confer and Case Management Conference;
  • Vehicles for Gathering Information during discovery;
  • What gets Turned Over and What is Withheld;
  • A review of the EDRM steps for Handling Discovery Documents;
  • Information about Settlements, Pre-Trial Motions and Pre-Trial Conference;
  • A comprehensive look at the components and phases of a Trial;
  • Circumstances for Appeal and process for proceeding with an appeal;
  • Appendices for mechanisms for Alternative Dispute Resolution and also Types of Litigation.

The white paper presents many of the topics covered in Jane’s ‘Litigation 101’ series, as well as some additional material not previously presented.  In addition to being a terrific resource for eDiscovery professionals, the white paper also covers the eDiscovery life cycle, making it a useful resource for all legal professionals.  Enjoy!

To download a copy of the white paper, click here.

So, what do you think?  Do you understand the “ins and outs” of 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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Great Resource for Status of State eDiscovery Rules – eDiscovery Trends

Ever wonder about your state and what eDiscovery rules it has?  Or if it has any at all?  The graphic of the US map you see here provides the key.

Winston & Strawn has a handy interactive map of the US (which looks just like this graphic) that enables you to click on any state (assuming that it has any information about rules) and get a page with links to the actual rules for that state (or documents related to rules being considered).  Wonder what the colors mean?  Here’s a key:

  • Green: This state essentially follows the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) eDiscovery model.
  • Blue: This state follows its own independent eDiscovery model.
  • Yellow: This state is in the process of undertaking and/or considering eDiscovery rules.
  • Orange: This state has not undertaken eDiscovery rulemaking activity to date.

Simply click on a state and you’ll be taken to a page with a listing of rules, orders, sample orders, etc., which, in turn, are also interactive and clickable.  For example, here is the list for Texas, my home state:

State Rules

  • TX_R. CP 196.4 Electronic or Magnetic Data

Federal Rules

  • TX_ S D LR Patent Cases Rules of Prac
  • TX_ S. D. Ct Procedures of Lee Rosenthal
  • TX_ S.D. Ct Procedures of J. Atlas
  • TX_E.D. Notice of Scheduling Conf
  • TX_N. D. District Misc Order No. 62

There are a few states that don’t seem to be clickable, but they are “orange states”, so it’s my guess that they simply have no documents available for that state.  This is a very useful and handy guide to eDiscovery rules in each of the states – well done, Winston & Strawn!

So, what do you think?  Can you believe that there are still apparently ten states with no eDiscovery rules?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Electronic Discovery on a First Date – eDiscovery Trends

Amy Bowser-Rollins in her excellent Litigation Support Guru blog raised an interesting question this week.  How should we describe “electronic discovery” to someone who has never heard the term before or had very little exposure to the legal industry?

In her post Electronic Discovery on a First Date (you should especially check it out for the cute animation), she identifies various scenarios (a recent college graduate you just hired, curious or confused family members, your students, a stranger at a cocktail party) to answer the “what do you do for a living” question if you’re a litigation support provider.  Some of us refer to this as the “elevator speech” in that you should be able to describe what you do in the time span of an elevator ride (no more than thirty seconds).

Amy tackles the question by breaking down “electronic discovery” into components, as follows:

  • The practice of law
  • Attorneys, more specifically litigators
  • The discovery phase of a litigation matter, more specifically identifying, collecting, reviewing and producing documents
  • Client documents, more specifically documents in electronic format

I might argue that “electronic discovery” sometimes also includes searching and reviewing the documents produced to you in litigation as well, not always just your client documents, but the components that Amy uses are certainly predominant for a litigation support professional and certainly fit the standard Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) that most use when they think of electronic discovery.

She then provides some examples of how she might use those components to answer the question.  She uses the easiest document type for the layperson to identify with – email – to describe how she (or any typical litigation support person) helps litigators with the discovery process.  I won’t steal her thunder – check out the link to her post above to see the examples that she proposed.  Obviously, we all know that we work with more than just emails, so the example descriptions might be a bit oversimplified, but for the newbie, that’s probably the right way to start.

I can relate to Amy’s question with recent examples – explaining to my girlfriend on our first date what I do (a true “first date” scenario!) and explaining to a couple of recent entry-level candidates for positions at CloudNine Discovery.  It’s a question that many of us wrestle with and a timely topic.  Thanks, Amy!

So, what do you think?  If you’re a litigation support or eDiscovery professional, how do you describe to others what you do?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

If You’re Feeling “Innovative”, This is the Conference For You – eDiscovery Trends

When it comes to informative sites regarding eDiscovery, IT-Lex is one of our favorites.  We’ve referenced several of their stories over the past couple of years and have also conducted a two part thought leader interview with their president and editor-in-chief, Adam Losey.  Now, IT-Lex is hosting their first conference and, we’re happy to have Samir Mathur, Managing Director and General Counsel of IT-Lex to provide a guest post to tell you more about the their inaugural Innovate conference next Thursday and Friday, October 17 and 18:

IT-Lex is an Orlando-based not-for-profit focused on the advancement of technology law, and next week, we’re hosting our inaugural Innovate conference at the newly-opened Alfond Inn, in beautiful Winter Park, Florida. We’ve put together an impressive agenda, featuring panels covering electronic discovery, privacy and data security, and social media, and speakers including a member of the FBI’s Cyber Intrusions Squad, and – government shutdown permitting –  Peter Miller, the Chief Privacy Officer of the Federal Trade Commission.

But this being eDiscoveryDaily, I figure that anyone reading this is probably more interested in our eDiscovery-themed panels. We’re starting strong on Thursday, October 17th: Anthony Mendenhall, a 2013 law graduate from the University of Tennessee, won the first IT-Lex/Foley & Lardner writing contest, with an essay about whether our current discovery system, where the producing party is generally expected to pay for everything, violates procedural due process. It’s an interesting argument, and so Innovate will kick off with Anthony talking about his essay, and then discussing it with such luminaries as Judge Facciola, Judge Nolan and Ken Withers of the Sedona Conference ®.

The following morning, Friday October 18th, will begin with the eDiscovery A-Team, Jason Baron, Maura Grossman and Ralph Losey, getting together for the first time to talk about predictive coding. Will it be the game-changer that some hope it will, making review faster and simultaneously more cost-effective? We’ll see what these three all-stars have to say.

Later that day, we’ll have a couple of panels that will really appeal to the more advanced eDiscovery folks out there. Firstly, a discussion of Preservation and Collection: best practices to minimize the chance of spoliation; and again, keep costs down. Later is the panel entitled Clawbacks, Cooperation and Competence, where our esteemed panelists will discuss clawback agreements: a possible way of saying goodbye to the privilege log. They’ll also explain why “cooperation” doesn’t have to be a dirty word or a foreign concept to litigators.

Innovate will close out with a Judicial Roundtable, at which our guests from the bench will offer their thoughts on the state of technology law today, and our audience will be able to ask any questions of the panel. To that end, any attendee can submit a question for any panel ahead of time by emailing innovate@it-lex.org, or tweeting us at @ITLexOrg. In order to keep things interactive, we’re not having any Power Point-based presentations – we want to emphasize discussion and audience involvement.

If you’re reading this post, then you’re likely already the kind of person whom we’d love to see at the conference! Please head to register online, and we look forward to welcoming you to Orlando and to Innovate.

Thanks, Samir, for the information!  It sounds like a very interesting and informative conference.  Check it out if you’re going to be in the area in Florida.

So, what do you think?  Will you be attending the inaugural Innovate conference?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Daily is Three Years Old!

We’ve always been free, now we are three!

It’s hard to believe that it has been three years ago today since we launched the eDiscoveryDaily blog.  We’re past the “terrible twos” and heading towards pre-school.  Before you know it, we’ll be ready to take our driver’s test!

We have seen traffic on our site (from our first three months of existence to our most recent three months) grow an amazing 575%!  Our subscriber base has grown over 50% in the last year alone!  Back in June, we hit over 200,000 visits on the site and now we have over 236,000!

We continue to appreciate the interest you’ve shown in the topics and will do our best to continue to provide interesting and useful posts about eDiscovery trends, best practices and case law.  That’s what this blog is all about.  And, in each post, we like to ask for you to “please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic”, so we encourage you to do so to make this blog even more useful.

We also want to thank the blogs and publications that have linked to our posts and raised our public awareness, including Pinhawk, Ride the Lightning, Litigation Support Guru, Complex Discovery, Bryan College, The Electronic Discovery Reading Room, Litigation Support Today, Alltop, ABA Journal, Litigation Support Blog.com, Litigation Support Technology & News, InfoGovernance Engagement Area, EDD Blog Online, eDiscovery Journal, Learn About E-Discovery, e-Discovery Team ® and any other publication that has picked up at least one of our posts for reference (sorry if I missed any!).  We really appreciate it!

As many of you know by now, we like to take a look back every six months at some of the important stories and topics during that time.  So, here are some posts over the last six months you may have missed.  Enjoy!

Rodney Dangerfield might put it this way – “I Tell Ya, Information Governance Gets No Respect”

Is it Time to Ditch the Per Hour Model for Document Review?  Here’s some food for thought.

Is it Possible for a File to be Modified Before it is Created?  Maybe, but here are some mechanisms for avoiding that scenario (here, here, here, here, here and here).  Best of all, they’re free.

Did you know changes to the Federal eDiscovery Rules are coming?  Here’s some more information.

Count Minnesota and Kansas among the states that are also making changes to support eDiscovery.

By the way, since the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) annual meeting back in May, several EDRM projects (Metrics, Jobs, Data Set and the new Native Files project) have already announced new deliverables and/or requested feedback.

When it comes to electronically stored information (ESI), ensuring proper chain of custody tracking is an important part of handling that ESI through the eDiscovery process.

Do you self-collect?  Don’t Forget to Check for Image Only Files!

The Files are Already Electronic, How Hard Can They Be to Load?  A sound process makes it easier.

When you remove a virus from your collection, does it violate your discovery agreement?

Do you think that you’ve read everything there is to read on Technology Assisted Review?  If you missed anything, it’s probably here.

Consider using a “SWOT” analysis or Decision Tree for better eDiscovery planning.

If you’re an eDiscovery professional, here is what you need to know about litigation.

BTW, eDiscovery Daily has had 242 posts related to eDiscovery Case Law since the blog began!  Forty-four of them have been in the last six months.

Our battle cry for next September?  “Four more years!”  🙂

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

Need to Make Key Discovery Decisions? Build a Tree – eDiscovery Best Practices

There are several decisions that the lead attorney has to make when a new case is filed.  Decisions made early in the life cycle of a case can significantly affect how discovery is managed and how costly the discovery process can be for that case.  Decision trees are a mechanism that can help attorneys plan for discovery by enabling them to make decisions up front that can lead to more efficient management of the discovery process.

What is a Decision Tree?

A decision tree is a decision support tool that uses a tree-like graph or model of decisions and their possible consequences.  It is essentially a flowchart in which each internal node represents a test on an attribute, each branch represents outcome of that test and each leaf node represents the decision taken after computing all attributes.

Have you ever prepared an analysis at the outset of a case to estimate the probability of winning the case and determining whether to litigate or attempt to settle?  Then, you’ve probably prepared some sort of decision tree to make those decisions.  You probably looked at the probability of winning, probabilities of different award amounts, extrapolated the costs for litigating against the potential award amounts and used that to decide how to proceed.  Today’s graphic provides an example of what a decision tree, drawn as a flowchart, might look like to represent that process.

Uses of Decision Trees in Discovery

Decision trees identify the available alternatives to tackle a particular business problem and can help identify the conditions conducive to each alternative.  Issues in discovery for which a decision tree might be warranted could include:

  • Decide whether to outsource litigation support and discovery activities or keep them in-house;
  • Select an appropriate discovery solution to meet your organization’s needs within its budget;
  • Decide when to implement a litigation hold and determine how to comply with your organization’s ongoing duty to preserve data;
  • Determine how to manage collection procedures in discovery that identify the appropriate custodians for each type of case;
  • Decide whether to perform responsiveness and privilege review of native files or convert to an image format such as TIFF or PDF to support those review processes,
  • Determine whether to agree to produce native files or converted TIFF or PDF images to opposing counsel.

In addition to promoting efficiency in the discovery process by planning up front, decision trees can also promote consistency in handling cases.  Decision trees are a great tool for walking through the logic of the decision making process, which reduces mistakes in the process by making the process more predictable and repeatable.

So, what do you think?  Does your organization use decision trees in your discovery process?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Graphic source: Wikipedia.

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

August Pop Quiz Answers! – eDiscovery Trends

Yesterday, we gave you a pop quiz for the topics we’ve covered in the past month.  If you’re reading the blog each day, these questions should be easy!  Let’s see how you did.  Here are the answers.

 

1.  Which of the following is NOT an eDiscovery Trailblazing Judge?:

 

A. Judy Sheindlin

B. Lee Rosenthal

C. Andrew Peck

D. Paul Grimm

While Shira Scheindlin is the eDiscovery trailblazing judge responsible for the Zubulake and Pension Committee decisions, Judy Sheindlin is the famous judge on the Judge Judy TV program.

 

2.  In which case, was a request to produce social media data denied “based on Plaintiff’s very limited showing as to the relevance of the requested discovery and the broadly drafted discovery requests”?:

 

A. Stooksbury v. Ross

B. Mali v. Federal Insurance Co.

C. Salvato v. Miley

D. Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC

 

3.  For any malware found in files that you’re processing for eDiscovery, you can agree in the Rule 26(f) conference to:

 

A. Attempt to remove the malware with virus protection software

B. Isolate and log the infected files as exceptions

C. Either A or B

D. Neither A nor B

 

4.  What does a MinHash algorithm count?:

 

A. Shingles

B. Tiles

C. Logs

D. Bricks

 

5.  Which state recently issued a Rule 1 Task Force Update to create newly released guidelines for electronic data discovery?

 

A. Nebraska

B. Missouri

C. Arkansas

D. Kansas

 

6.  In which case was the defendant sanctioned with a default judgment for failing to comply with discovery obligations?

 

A. Stooksbury v. Ross

B. Mali v. Federal Insurance Co.

C. Salvato v. Miley

D. Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC

 

7.  Where was the ILTA conference held this year?  Hint: it’s not pager friendly.

 

A. Bellagio

B. Aria

C. Caesars Palace

D. Mandalay Bay

If you saw The Hangover, you should know that Caesars Palace is not pager friendly…

 

8.  In which case was the plaintiff given a permissive adverse inference instruction which was upheld on appeal?

 

A. Stooksbury v. Ross

B. Mali v. Federal Insurance Co.

C. Salvato v. Miley

D. Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC

 

9.  Which of the following is NOT a compressed format that can double in size (and cost) when expanded?

 

A. TXT

B. PST

C. ZIP

D. RAR

 

10. In Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, the plaintiff’s motion to compel regarding production format was:

 

A. Granted

B. Denied

C. Granted in part, but denied in part

D. None of the above

 

Bonus Question!  You’ll have to dig a bit for this one:

 

Three of the four cases below (like the case that is the answer to question #2 above) had requests for social media or personal data denied, but one had the request granted.  Identify the case where the request was granted.

 

A. Keller v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co.

B. Rodriguez v. Nevada

C. Moore v. Miller

D. Mailhoit v. Home Depot

 

How did you do?  Next month, you’ll get another chance with September topics.  As always, please let us know if you have questions or comments, or if there are specific topics you’d like to see covered.

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

August Pop Quiz! – eDiscovery Trends

Did you think we forgot to quiz you about last month’s topics?  Perish the thought!  Like we did in July (answers for July here), here is a pop quiz for the topics we covered in August.  If you’re reading the blog each day, these questions should be easy!  If not, we’ve provided a link to the post with the answer.  We’re that nice.  Test your knowledge!  Tomorrow, we’ll post the answers for those who don’t know and didn’t look them up.

 

1.  Which of the following is NOT an eDiscovery Trailblazing Judge?:

 

A. Judy Sheindlin

B. Lee Rosenthal

C. Andrew Peck

D. Paul Grimm

 

2.  In which case, was a request to produce social media data denied “based on Plaintiff’s very limited showing as to the relevance of the requested discovery and the broadly drafted discovery requests”?:

 

A. Stooksbury v. Ross

B. Mali v. Federal Insurance Co.

C. Salvato v. Miley

D. Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC

 

3.  For any malware found in files that you’re processing for eDiscovery, you can agree in the Rule 26(f) conference to:

 

A. Attempt to remove the malware with virus protection software

B. Isolate and log the infected files as exceptions

C. Either A or B

D. Neither A nor B

 

4.  What does a MinHash algorithm count?:

 

A. Shingles

B. Tiles

C. Logs

D. Bricks

 

5.  Which state recently issued a Rule 1 Task Force Update to create newly released guidelines for electronic data discovery?

 

A. Nebraska

B. Missouri

C. Arkansas

D. Kansas

 

6.  In which case was the defendant sanctioned with a default judgment for failing to comply with discovery obligations?

 

A. Stooksbury v. Ross

B. Mali v. Federal Insurance Co.

C. Salvato v. Miley

D. Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC

 

7.  Where was the ILTA conference held this year?  Hint: it’s not pager friendly.

 

A. Bellagio

B. Aria

C. Caesars Palace

D. Mandalay Bay

 

8.  In which case was the plaintiff given a permissive adverse inference instruction which was upheld on appeal?

 

A. Stooksbury v. Ross

B. Mali v. Federal Insurance Co.

C. Salvato v. Miley

D. Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC

 

9.  Which of the following is NOT a compressed format that can double in size (and cost) when expanded?

 

A. TXT

B. PST

C. ZIP

D. RAR

 

10. In Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, the plaintiff’s motion to compel regarding production format was:

 

A. Granted

B. Denied

C. Granted in part, but denied in part

D. None of the above

 

Bonus Question!  You’ll have to dig a bit for this one:

 

Three of the four cases below (like the case that is the answer to question #2 above) had requests for social media or personal data denied, but one had the request granted.  Identify the case where the request was granted.

 

A. Keller v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co.

B. Rodriguez v. Nevada

C. Moore v. Miller

D. Mailhoit v. Home Depot

 

As always, please let us know if you have questions or comments, or if there are specific topics you’d like to see covered.

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