Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

New Roles for George Socha and Randi Mayes and First Masters Conference Report: eDiscovery Trends

Changes are in store for a couple of legal technology icons.  And, here are some of the things you missed at this week’s Masters Conference.

George Socha Has a New Role

ACEDS reported yesterday that George Socha, co-founder of EDRM, announced yesterday at the Summer Social for Women in eDiscovery in Minneapolis that he has joined BDO as Managing Director for Thought Leadership. ACEDS reports that George says he will be continuing his work with EDRM and will continue to be a presence at industry conferences, on webinars, and publishing new eDiscovery materials.  Having participated in EDRM since 2006 (and as an Education partner via eDiscovery Daily), I can’t imagine EDRM without George, so that’s good to hear.

ACEDS reported that George says he still has to figure out all of his new responsibilities within the company but will be actively involved in business development as well as working on specific matters, including providing expert testimony. “One of the things that impressed me about BDO was their concern with making sure I understood and appreciated the importance they place on collaborative work and teamwork,” George said.

Randi Mayes Stepping Down as Executive Director of ILTA

ACEDS also reported ILTA’s announcement that Randi Mayes, known as the “Mother of ILTA” and the organization’s long-serving executive director, will step down from her position in 2017. Randi has been with the organization since its inception, first as a volunteer leader and eventually as its executive director.  I remember coordinating with her as a vendor way back in 1999-2000, when ILTA was known as LawNet and the conference every year was located in Palm Springs at the LaQuinta resort.  The organization and the conference have both come a long way and she has been a big part of that.

The organization’s Board of Directors says it has formed a search committee to oversee the process of selecting a new executive director.

Notes from the Masters Conference, courtesy of Bill Dimm

We had a terrific day at The Masters Conference New York City 2016 IoT, Cybersecurity and Social Media Conference on Monday and I want to thank the panelists for the session that I moderated (Faster, Cheaper, Better: How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery).  Bill Dimm, CEO of Hot Neuron, Bill Speros, Evidence Consulting Attorney with Speros & Associates, LLC and Hon. Ronald J. Hedges, Senior Counsel with Dentons all provided great insight into considerations and potential limitations of technology assisted review from a technician, consultant and judicial perspective.  They did a great job of spotlighting several instances where the hype of TAR may not meet the current state of TAR technology and acceptance.

When we were not presenting, we were able to attend other sessions throughout the day.  Most of the time, there were two sessions going at the same time, so you could only attend one of them.  I have some observations that I plan to share from one or two of the sessions next week.  Bill Dimm, on his Clustify blog, has already provided some observations here from the sessions that he attended that are worth checking out as well.

So, what do you think?  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.

EU-US Privacy Shield Formally Adopted by the European Commission: eDiscovery Trends

As we discussed back in February, the EU-US Privacy Shield, an important new agreement governing the transfer of data between Europe and the United States, was announced on February 2.  Within the same month, the European Commission released details on the new trans-Atlantic data transfer arrangement.  Now, the European Commission has formally adopted the new agreement, only nine months after the old “Safe Harbor” agreement was struck down.

As discussed in The Verge (EU-US Privacy Shield agreement goes into effect, written by Amar Toor), the new data transfer pact went into effect two days ago (July 12), and US companies will be able to certify their compliance as of August 1st.

EU member states formally signed on to the agreement last week, but The Guardian reported that Austria, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Croatia abstained from the vote. The paper reported that representatives of Austria and Slovenia still had doubts over whether the deal would protect their citizens’ data from US surveillance.

Under the agreement, US companies will have to self-certify that they meet higher data protection standards, and the US Department of Commerce will be charged with conducting “regular reviews” to ensure compliance. The US has also assured EU member states that there will be “clear limitations, safeguards and oversight mechanisms” governing how law enforcement and federal agencies access the data of Europeans, and that bulk data collection would only be carried out “under specific preconditions and needs to be as targeted and focused as possible,” according to the European Commission.

“We have worked hard with all our partners in Europe and in the US to get this deal right and to have it done as soon as possible,” Andrus Ansip, vice president for the European Commission’s Digital Single Market initiative, said in a statement Tuesday. “Data flows between our two continents are essential to our society and economy – we now have a robust framework ensuring these transfers take place in the best and safest conditions.”

But some civil liberties groups are wary of Privacy Shield, questioning whether it will have any meaningful impact on consumer privacy. Privacy International, a London-based watchdog, expressed concerns over the new deal after a leaked version was published online last week, describing it in a post as “an opaque document that will be a field day for law firms.”  “In short: new ‘Shield’, old problems,” Tomaso Falchetta, legal officer at Privacy International, said in an email on Tuesday. “Given the flawed premises – trying to fix data protection deficit in the US by means of government’s assurances as opposed to meaningful legislative reform – it is not surprising that the new Privacy Shield remains full of holes and hence offers limited protection to personal data,” Falchetta added.

Rob Robinson’s Complex Discovery site includes a reference to the story here, which also includes a handy one-page PDF file that summarizes the new EU-US Privacy Shield.

So, what do you think?  Will the new “Privacy Shield” be an effective replacement to the old “Safe Harbor”?  Or will it be doomed to failure as well?  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 Grants Discovery on Individual Defendants’ Personal Computers and Email: eDiscovery Case Law

In Sunderland v. Suffolk County et. al., No. 13-4838 (E.D.N.Y., June 14, 2016), New York Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson, determining that the plaintiff’s request for individual defendants to search for and produce certain documents from their personal computers and email accounts was not “unduly intrusive or burdensome” because the request was limited in time frame and the parties had agreed to search terms, granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel.

Case Background

In this case where a transgender prison inmate sued the defendants claiming they acted “with deliberate indifference” to serious medical needs by denying hormone therapy for gender dysphoria, the plaintiff served discovery requests on the both the county and the individual defendants seeking documents and correspondence that contained certain search terms related to gender dysphoria, gender identity, transgender status and sexual preference. The parties agreed upon the search terms, but the defendants refused to conduct searches on individual personal computers and email. The plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel, which pointed out that the plaintiff had sued the individual defendants in their individual capacities, not their official capacities as medical personnel employed by the County.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that the information requested by the plaintiff “falls within the broad scope of relevant discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) in light of Plaintiff’s allegations against the Individual Defendants and her Monell claim against the County”, Judge Tomlinson concluded that “Plaintiff has the right to pursue emails and other correspondence the Individual Defendants may have created/saved on their personal computers or sent from their personal email accounts which reference Plaintiff or discuss issues related to gender dysphoria.”

Judge Tomlinson noted that “to the extent such documents exist on the Individual Defendants’ personal computers, they may contain information going to bias or motivation which may show why a personal computer was used for such communications, including information which may support Plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference against the Individual Defendants.”  She also indicated that she “does not consider the requested discovery unduly intrusive or burdensome”, noting that the request “is limited to an approximate five-year time frame running from September 8, 2009 to January 3, 2014, which the Individual Defendants have not objected to in their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. It also appears that the parties have agreed upon the search terms to be used.”  As a result, Judge Tomlinson granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery from the individual defendants’ personal computers and email accounts.

So, what do you think?  Was the plaintiff entitled to discovery from the individuals’ computers and email accounts?  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.

Once Again, It’s Time to Recognize Your Favorite Law Blog!: eDiscovery Trends

ABA Journal is working on their 10th annual list of the 100 best legal blogs, and, once again, they would like your advice on which blogs you think they should include.  If you have a favorite law blog (or “blawg”, get it?), now is the time to nominate it for recognition in the ABA Journal Annual Blawg 100!

On their Blawg 100 Amici page, you can complete the form to identify yourself, your employer or law school, your city and email address, the URL of the blog you wish to nominate, a link to a recent post from the blog and a brief (up to 500 characters) description as to why you’re a fan of the “blawg”.  You’re also asked whether you know the “blawgger” personally (and admonished to “be honest”) and whether ABA Journal can use your name and comment in their coverage.  You can nominate more than one “blawg”.

As always, ABA Journal notes that they discourage submissions (which they call “amici”) from:

  • Bloggers who nominate their own blogs or nominate blogs to which they have previously contributed posts.
  • Employees of law firms who nominate blogs written by their co-workers.
  • Public relations professionals in the employ of lawyers or law firms who nominate their clients’ blogs.
  • Pairs of bloggers who have clearly entered into a quid pro quo agreement to nominate each other.

Friend-of-the-blawg briefs (i.e., to fill and submit the form) are due by no later than 11:59 p.m. CT on Sunday, Aug. 7, 2015 to include your nomination.

One twist this year is that law blogs in the Blawg 100 Hall of Fame are not eligible for this year’s list.  Wow, there’s a “Blawg Hall of Fame”.  Some of us are just trying to make the All-Star Game, just sayin’… :o)

Anyway, if you have enjoyed reading eDiscovery Daily over the past several years and found our blog to be informative, we would love to be recognized!  Feel free to click on the link here to nominate us!  We appreciate the consideration!

There are other excellent legal technology blogs out there.  Here are a few of our favorites.  Feel free to nominate them too.  :o)

Our hats are off to all of those who provide eDiscovery news and analysis to the industry!  Again, if you would like to nominate any of the blogs (including, of course, eDiscoveryDaily), click here.  Deadline is August 7.

So, what do you think?  Do you have a favorite eDiscovery blog or source of information?  Share it with our readers!  And, 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 “Master” Your Knowledge of eDiscovery in New York City!: eDiscovery Trends

Today’s the day!  If you’re in the New York City area today, join me and other legal technology experts and professionals at The Masters Conference New York City 2016 IoT, Cybersecurity and Social Media Conference for a full day of educational sessions covering a wide range of topics!  It’s not too late to register and attend!

The Masters Conference brings together leading experts and professionals from law firms, corporations and the bench to develop strategies, practices and resources for managing the information life cycle.  This year’s NYC event covers a wide range of topics from the impact of social media and the Internet of Things (IoT) on eDiscovery risks and costs to the revolution in eDiscovery analytics to how to handle cross-border data in the wake of the Schrems decision and the new privacy shield.

The event will be held at the historic New Yorker Hotel, 481 8th Ave., New York, NY 10001.  Registration begins at 8am, with sessions starting right after that, at 8:30am.

CloudNine will again be sponsoring the session Faster, Cheaper, Better: How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery at 8:30am.  I am excited to again be moderating, this time with Bill Dimm, CEO of Hot Neuron, Bill Speros, Evidence Consulting Attorney with Speros & Associates, LLC and Hon. Ronald J. Hedges, Senior Counsel with Dentons, as panelists.

Our panel discussion will provide an overview of the eDiscovery automation technologies we will really take a hard look at the technology and definition of TAR and the limitations associated with both.  It should be a very informative discussion with a very knowledgeable panel!  Hope you can join us!

Click here to register for the conference.  The cost is only $165 for a full day of sessions.  That’s hard to beat!

The Masters Conference also has an event coming up in Washington DC in October – its 10 year anniversary event!  Click here for more information on that.

So, what do you think?  Are you attending today’s conference?  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.

Accessing Your Former Company’s Data with a Shared Password Could Make You a Hacker: Cybersecurity Trends

Can you spot what’s different about today’s post?  See below…  :o)

According to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, if you leave your company and then use a former co-worker’s credentials to access your former company’s computer systems, you could be a hacker.

In The Wall Street Journal Law Blog (Appeals Court: Using Shared Password to Steal Company Secrets is Hacking, written by Jacob Gershman), the appellate court affirmed the computer-hacking conviction of a former executive (David Nosal) at a recruiting firm accused of using a shared password to steal headhunting leads from the company’s internal network after he left his job to launch a rival business, ruling that he violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

Reuters reported that Nosal and two friends, who had also left Korn/Ferry, used an employee’s password in 2005 to access the recruiting firm’s computers and obtain information to help start a new firm.

In a 2-1 decision written by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, the majority held that Mr. Nosal acted “without authorization” in violation of the CFAA when he used login credentials shared by his assistant to gain access to the company’s network after his own credentials had been revoked.  The dissenting judge, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, expressed his concerns over the ruling, stating:

“People frequently share their passwords, notwithstanding the fact that websites and employers have policies prohibiting it. In my view, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act does not make the millions of people who engage in this ubiquitous, useful, and generally harmless conduct into unwitting federal criminals…”

However, Judge McKeown, in her opinion, indicated that the circumstances at issue couldn’t be applied to innocuous scenarios, like “asking a spouse to log in to an email account to print a boarding pass.”  Judge McKeown also noted that, without enforcement, “an employee could willy nilly give out passwords to anyone outside the company – former employees whose access had been revoked, competitors, industrious hackers, or bank robbers who find it less risky and more convenient to access accounts via the Internet rather than through armed robbery.”

The appellate court did rule that the more than $800,000 in restitution (about $600,000 of that in attorney’s fees) that Nosal was ordered to pay his old employer was unreasonable and asked a lower court to recalculate it.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever used a shared password to access a system to which you previously had credentials?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

What’s different about this post?  It doesn’t have the word “eDiscovery” in the title… :o)

New Time!  Just a reminder that I will be moderating a panel at The Masters Conference New York City 2016 IoT, Cybersecurity and Social Media Conference this coming Monday, July 11 (we covered it here) as part of a full day of educational sessions covering a wide range of topics.  CloudNine will be sponsoring that session, titled Faster, Cheaper, Better: How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery at 8:30am, not 4:15pm.  The early bird catches the knowledge.  :o)  Click here to register for the conference.

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 Rejects Plaintiff’s Request for Fee Reimbursement in Responding to Motion: eDiscovery Case Law

In Gade v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. 14-00048 (D. Vermont, June 6, 2016), Vermont Chief District Judge Christina Reiss denied the plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring the defendant to pay expenses and fees that she incurred in opposing the defendant’s motion to compel production of an Excel spreadsheet from the plaintiff’s expert.

Case Background

In this personal injury case where the plaintiff sued after the defendant denied her uninsured and underinsured motorist benefits claims, the defendant deposed the plaintiff’s biomechanical expert (John Smith).  The defendant asked for the expert to bring his files to the deposition, but did not examine the files before or during the deposition, instead requesting a complete copy of the expert’s file afterward, including his calculations.  In response, the plaintiff produced a copy of the expert’s file, including eight pages of data and calculations in PDF format.

On three different occasions, the defendant requested the expert’s files in Excel format, to see the underlying calculations and inputs on which the expert relied. During a September 2015 telephone conference, the plaintiff advised the defendant that if the expert’s files existed in Excel format, they would be produced; however, the plaintiff failed to do so, even after three additional written requests for those files.  Finally, the plaintiff responded that she would not produce the expert’s files in Excel format because his files, including his “unredacted calculations” and “the applicable formulas” had previously been produced in PDF format, inviting the defendant to cite “some applicable rule or decision that allows a party to compel another party’s expert to produce work-product files in a particular format”.

Ultimately, the defendant filed a motion to compel, which the plaintiff opposed; however, the parties, after sharing additional information, eventually agreed that motion to compel was moot. However, the plaintiff then sought compensation from the defendant for her attorneys’ fees incurred in opposing the motion, alleging that Defendant did not properly meet and confer as required by the rules.

Judge’s Ruling

After noting that the plaintiff “complied with her duty of disclosure and Defendant properly withdrew its motion to compel”, Judge Reiss turned her attention to the question of whether the defendant complied with Local Rule 26, which requires the movant to “confer[] with opposing counsel in a good faith effort to reduce or eliminate the controversy or arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution.”  Judge Reiss noted that the defendant “made six informal written requests for Mr. Smith’s files in Excel format from July 28, 2015 through October 13, 2015” and “also made an oral request for the information during a September 10, 2015 telephone call, after which Plaintiff initially stated that she would produce Mr. Smith’s files in Excel format, but later declined to do so.”

While admitting that “the better practice would have been for Defendant to make a formal request Mr. Smith’s files and underlying calculations prior to his deposition”, Judge Reiss ruled that “Defense counsel’s repeated attempts to obtain Mr. Smith’s files in Excel format prior to seeking court intervention, in conjunction with its affidavit supporting the motion to compel, satisfy the requirements of Local Rule 26(d)(2).”  As a result, determining that “it would be unreasonable and unfair to require” the defendant to pay fees to respond to a motion to compel that “arguably should have been unnecessary”, Judge Reiss ruled that “an award of sanctions, expenses, and fees is not warranted in this case.”

So, what do you think?  Did the Defendant go far enough to meet and confer on the issue?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

New Time!  Just a reminder that I will be moderating a panel at The Masters Conference New York City 2016 IoT, Cybersecurity and Social Media Conference on Monday, July 11 (we covered it here) as part of a full day of educational sessions covering a wide range of topics.  CloudNine will be sponsoring that session, titled Faster, Cheaper, Better: How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery at 8:30am, not 4:15pm.  The early bird catches the knowledge.  :o)  Click here to register for the conference.

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.

According to Gartner, Cloud eDiscovery Solutions Gaining Momentum: eDiscovery Trends

According to a new guide by Gartner designed to help General Counsel and IT leaders at organizations evaluate and select eDiscovery solutions for investigative and legal matters, cloud-based eDiscovery solutions are gaining momentum in the market.

Written by Gartner’s industry analyst Jie Zhang, Market Guide for E-Discovery Solutions (available for purchase here) identifies several key findings, including the observation that Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solutions are gaining momentum, interest in Microsoft’s eDiscovery capabilities continues to build and (not surprisingly) the eDiscovery service market continues to see high merger and acquisition activities.  Ease of use and more competitive and straightforward pricing structures are cited as reasons for the emergence of SaaS solutions in the eDiscovery market.

The Table of Contents for the 24 page guide is as follows:

  • Market Definition
    • Technology
    • Services
  • Market Direction
    • Three Types of Solution Providers
    • Pricing
    • Market Adoption and Growth
  • Market Analysis
    • SaaS Solutions Are Gaining Momentum
    • Building Interest in Microsoft’s E-Discovery Capabilities
    • Searching Across Multiple and Hybrid Data Repositories Becomes More Onerous and Leads to Overinvestment
    • Merger and Acquisition Is Second Nature to the E-Discovery Service Market
    • The Application of Machine-Learning Technology in E-Discovery Beyond the U.S. Market
  • Representative Vendors
    • Representative E-Discovery Solution Providers
  • Market Recommendations
  • Gartner Recommended Reading

According to Rob Robinson’s Complex Discovery site (link here), the report also highlights 50 total providers in the industry (30 software providers, 20 service providers), including CloudNine (shameless plug warning!).  For software providers, deployment model and key technology capabilities or other noteworthy characteristics are identified, for service providers, the report identifies proprietary and/or third party software offered, as well as services offered.  The report concludes with recommendations for general counsel, chief compliance officers, chief information officers (CIOs) and their teams to consider when choosing and implementing eDiscovery solutions, as well as other Gartner recommended reading reports.

The report provides a current list of available software and service providers, with some useful industry observations and recommendations to help organizations in selecting the right provider for them.

So, what do you think?  Are you surprised by any of Gartner’s industry observations?  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.

Cybersecurity Concerns Serve as Impetus for Law Firm Acquisition: eDiscovery Trends

We all know that data breaches and cybersecurity are more of a concern than ever.  In at least one case, those concerns were part of the decision for two law firms to announce their decision to merge last week.

As covered by Bloomberg Law (L.A. Divorce Lawyer to Join Big Law: Her Cybersecurity Worries and More, written by Casey Sullivan) and other outlets, celebrity divorce attorney Stacy Phillips and her four-lawyer boutique law firm, Phillips Lerner, decided to be acquired by Blank Rome last week and joined the firm last Friday.

Over the years, Phillips has represented Bobby Brown in his divorce from Whitney Houston, Corina Villaraigosa in her divorce from Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Darcy LaPier in her child custody battle with Jean Claude Van Damme.

When interviewed by Bloomberg Law, Phillips indicated that cybersecurity concerns were part of the reason for the decision to join Blank Rome.

“I wanted to be part of a larger institution. I made that decision as the world gets far more complicated. I wasn’t sleeping at night because I was worried about cybersecurity”, said Phillips.  “I wanted to practice law and develop business. Running the business isn’t my interest and isn’t my strength.”

Asked about her specific concerns about cybersecurity, Phillips responded: “Divorce is a contentious process and people do bad things and people in other cases can be resentful and make efforts to hack into our computers. And what we have of our clients is extremely personal. It’s everything from their emotions, to their finances, and their kids. It’s very scary. The law firms can be hacked and infiltrated. It’s not a question of ‘if,’ it’s a question of ‘when?’ Each law firm and many law firms are going to be hit. [Blank Rome is] a bigger platform and you don’t have to worry about things like that. I don’t want to worry about that at the level that I have been. Other people know and understand it better than I do. I am grateful that others will take care of it. For me, to learn how to do all the computer stuff is a challenge. My son is an engineer and I didn’t get that brain chip.”

Perhaps stories like this will cause other firms to consider similar moves to join larger firms with a more secure infrastructure.  We’ll see.

So, what do you think?  Is this acquisition part of a growing trend?  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 Again – This Time, In New York City!: eDiscovery Trends

Back in May, I was excited and honored to moderate an enjoyable panel session in Chicago at The Masters Conference Windy City Cybersecurity, Social Media and eDiscovery event.  However, if you aren’t located in the Chicago area (or didn’t travel there for the event) you may have missed it.  Now, if you’re going to be in the New York area on July 11, you get another chance to attend!

The Masters Conference brings together leading experts and professionals from law firms, corporations and the bench to develop strategies, practices and resources for managing the information life cycle.  Like the Chicago event, the New York City 2016 IoT, Cybersecurity and Social Media Conference will cover a wide range of topics from the impact of social media and the Internet of Things (IoT) on eDiscovery risks and costs to the revolution in eDiscovery analytics to how to handle cross-border data in the wake of the Schrems decision and the new privacy shield.

The New York event will be held at the historic New Yorker Hotel, 481 8th Ave , New York, NY 10001.  Registration begins at 8am, with sessions starting right after that, at 8:30am.

CloudNine will again be sponsoring the session Faster, Cheaper, Better: How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery at 4:15.  I am excited to again be moderating, this time with Bill Dimm, CEO of Hot Neuron, Bill Speros, Evidence Consulting Attorney with Speros & Associates, LLC and Hon. Ronald J. Hedges, Principal of Ronald J. Hedges, LLC, as panelists.

Our panel discussion will provide an overview of the evolution of electronic discovery technologies and also share with attendees ways that they can consider and compare technology offerings from the large ecosystem of providers supporting litigation, investigations, and audits and includes an overview of the attributes of fourth generation eDiscovery automation technology.  It should be a very informative discussion with a very knowledgeable panel!  Hope you can join us!

Click here to register for the conference.  The cost is only $165 for a full day of sessions.  That’s hard to beat!

The Masters Conference also has an event coming up in Washington DC in October – its 10 year anniversary event!  Click here for more information on that.

So, what do you think?  Are you going to be in New York City on July 11?  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.

eDiscovery Daily will return on Tuesday.  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.