Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

IoT Devices Lead to Suspect’s Arrest for Murder: eDiscovery Trends

Honestly, I don’t know why anyone would consider committing a violent crime these days.  There’s the use of ever-improving DNA technology that leads to the arrest of scores of alleged offenders each year – even if you’re not in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) database, you can still be identified as a suspect through your relatives via genealogy databases, as we’ve recently seen in the case of the Golden State Killer.  And, if your DNA doesn’t get you, an Internet of Things (IoT) device may, as evidenced in this case.

As reported by CNET (Murder victim’s Fitbit data leads to alleged killer’s arrest, written by Steven Musil), Karen Navarra’s Fitbit recorded a rapid rise in her heart rate before a sudden drop-off to nothing, offering San Jose police a clearer time frame of her death on Sept. 8, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Friday. 90-year-old Tony Aiello was arrested last month in connection with his 67-year-old stepdaughter’s death.

Investigators noticed Navarra was wearing a Fitbit and they turned to the company for any possible clues the device could provide. Police learned that Navarra’s heart rate spiked at 3:20 p.m. and stopped registering a heartbeat eight minutes later, the Chronicle reported.

Although Aiello has reportedly denied killing Navarra, nearby cameras captured images of Aiello’s car parked at Navarra’s home on Sept. 8 at the same time her Fitbit showed her heartbeat rapidly falling and stopping, the newspaper reported.

Of course, those “nearby cameras” could themselves be IoT devices (Ring doorbell, anybody?).  And, we covered a different case last year regarding the Fitbit of a murder victim that helped disprove her husband’s story regarding an “intruder” that he said shot her to death – that evidence helped lead to his arrest for her murder.  In another case covered on 48 Hours recently, a Wisconsin man’s Fitbit exonerated him of his girlfriend’s 2016 murder when it showed his movements during the time police say her body was dumped in a field.  Needless to say, IoT devices are becoming more and more prominent in criminal investigations and discovery.

Changing gears here, Rob Robinson, through his terrific Complex Discovery site, is certainly the king of compilations and analysis regarding eDiscovery trends and his latest analysis involves “an aggregation of results from fourteen surveys from leading ALM magazines ranging from Corporate Counsel to Texas Lawyer administered to online audiences and published as special supplements between November 2017 and October 2018.”  Rob took the sixteen eDiscovery-centric survey categories represented in the fourteen surveys and tracked all of the providers who received at least one vote as a top three provider (101 providers in all).

Twenty-five of those providers was voted a top three provider at least six times across the fourteen surveys and Rob has ranked them by the number of times they received a top three vote.  So, which provider was voted a top three provider the most times by participants in the fourteen ALM surveys?  Click here to find out.  :o)

So, what do you think?  Have you had a case that involved evidence from an IoT device?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

“Master” Your Knowledge of eDiscovery With This Conference in Washington DC Again This Year: eDiscovery Trends

It’s October!  The leaves are turning, the baseball playoffs are currently going on (with the Astros one step closer to making my prediction come true again).  And, it’s time for another The Master’s Conference DC event!  It’s almost two days 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 eDiscovery and the information life cycle.  This year’s Washington DC event includes nearly two days of educational sessions covers topics ranging from privacy to cybersecurity to social media to cloud computing.  GDPR, blockchain and big data are also significant topics for the event.

The event will be held on Tuesday, October 23 and Wednesday, October 24 at Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street, N.W. #600, Washington, DC 20005.  It’s about three blocks away from the White House (anything happening over there these days?).  Registration begins at 8am each day, with sessions starting right after that, at 8:30am.

CloudNine will be sponsoring the session Data, Discovery, and Decisions: Extending Discovery From Collection To Creation at 11:15pm on Wednesday, October 24th.  I will be moderating a panel of eDiscovery experts to discuss the challenges that big data place on information governance and legal discovery professionals and potential approaches for addressing those challenges.  Hope you can join us!

Click here to register for the conference.  The cost to attend can be as low as $250 for nearly two days of terrific educational content.  So, if you plan to attend and haven’t registered yet (why not?), now is the time to do it.

This year, The Master’s Conference still has one more event scheduled for Orlando.  Click here for more information on remaining scheduled events for the year.

So, what do you think?  Are you going to be in Washington DC on October 23 and 24?  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.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Here’s a Webcast to Help You Get a “Clue” Regarding Your eDiscovery Process: eDiscovery Webcasts

As evidenced by some high-profile recent eDiscovery disasters, managing eDiscovery projects is more complex than ever. Not only have the volume and variability of ESI data sources increased dramatically, but there are often more stakeholders in eDiscovery projects today than characters on the board game Clue©. Successful eDiscovery today means not only meeting your obligations, but also making sure that each stakeholder in the process succeeds as well.  Here’s a webcast that can enable you to get a “clue” regarding your eDiscovery process – with a special guest!

Wednesday, October 31st at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast Get a “Clue” Regarding Your eDiscovery Process. In this one-hour webcast that’s CLE-approved in selected states, we will discuss the various participants in the eDiscovery process, what motivates each of them, and best practices on how to avoid becoming the next high-profile eDiscovery disaster. Topics include:

  • The Process: Managing the Project from Initiation to Close
  • The Phases: Managing the Flow of ESI Before and During the Process
  • The Players: Goals and Objectives of Each eDiscovery Stakeholder
  • Whodunnit?: Lessons Learned from a Large Financial Institution’s Mistakes
  • Whodunnit?: Lessons Learned from a Government Entity’s Mistakes
  • Whodunnit?: Lessons Learned from a Medical Center’s Mistakes
  • Recommendations for Avoiding Your Own Mistakes
  • Resources for More Information

I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Tom O’Connor.  But, this time, we will have a special guest — Mike Quartararo!  Mike is the founder and managing director of eDPM Advisory Services, a consulting firm providing e-discovery, project management and legal technology professional services to law firms, corporate legal departments and service provider organizations. He is also the author of the 2016 book Project Management in Electronic Discovery, which merges project management principles and best practices in electronic discovery.

To register for the webcast, click here.  Even if you can’t make it, go ahead and register to get a link to the slides and to the recording of the webcast (if you want to check it out later).  Three guys with beards on the Wolfman’s favorite day, what could be better!  It’s a lead pipe cinch!  Get it?  :o)

So, what do you think?  Do you have a “clue” about how to avoid your own eDiscovery disaster?  If not, please join us!  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Clue Board Game Image Copyright © Hasbro.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions for Defendant’s Failure to Preserve Surveillance Video: eDiscovery Case Law

In Ball v. George Washington Univ., No. 17-cv-0507 (DLF) (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2018), District of Columbia District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich, denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for allegedly destroying two surveillance videos, stating: “Because Ball has not proven—even by a preponderance of the evidence—that GW permanently stored the Lafayette Hall surveillance footage, the Court need not conduct further inquiry under Rule 37(e).”

Case Background

In this case for wrongful termination, negligence and violations of rights, the defendant considered surveillance footage from two days (July 13 and 14, 2015) that showed the plaintiff entering and exiting buildings on campus, during its investigation preceding the termination of the plaintiff’s employment.  The defendant produced a July 13 video of the plaintiff in one building and produced screenshots of the July 14 surveillance footage from another building, Lafayette Hall, but it did not produce videos of Lafayette Hall for either July 13 or July 14, which reportedly showed the plaintiff entering and exiting at different times than he had indicated on his time sheet.

According to declarations, the surveillance footage was recorded on network video recorders that automatically delete old footage as the recorders become full. The video recorders that stored the July 13 and 14 Lafayette Hall footage at issue typically delete footage every 30 days (and sometimes as early as 14 days) after recording. Defendant police officers routinely permanently download surveillance footage for use in criminal investigations; however, they download surveillance footage for Human Resources (HR) investigations only upon an HR investigator’s request.

In this case, the parties disputed whether the footage at issue was downloaded: the plaintiff contended that the surveillance footage was permanently stored on CDs and given to a member of the defendant’s HR department (Claude Owens), and ultimately to the defendant’s in-house counsel, arguing that the videos’ alleged non-existence showed that the defendant’s in-house counsel destroyed or lost the videos. The defendant countered that the surveillance footage was not permanently stored but instead was automatically overwritten within 30 days (and possibly 14 days) of recording.  While Owens “thought he might have given the tape to ‘the lawyers’”, a detective with the defendant’s police force (Detective Robinson) stated in a declaration that he never downloaded the Lafayette Hall sixth floor footage and had only showed and sent screenshots to the HR employee.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Friedrich stated: “Although the evidence before the Court is unclear, the weight of the evidence tilts in favor of GW’s explanation. Robinson’s declaration, coupled with evidence that the envelope remained sealed until Romero opened it, supports a finding that the surveillance footage of Lafayette Hall was never downloaded from the video recorders. Robinson stated that he never downloaded the Lafayette Hall sixth floor footage…And Owens testified that neither he nor Wells ever opened the sealed envelope…To the extent that the deposition testimony of Wells and Owens provides any support for Ball’s theory, the evidence is speculative and inconclusive…Because Ball has not proven—even by a preponderance of the evidence—that GW permanently stored the Lafayette Hall surveillance footage, the Court need not conduct further inquiry under Rule 37(e).”

So, what do you think?  Should the defendant have preserved the video if it was used as evidence to terminate the plaintiff’s employment?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

The Sedona Conference Has Updated its Commentary on Information Governance: eDiscovery Best Practices

It’s been a busy year for The Sedona Conference® (TSC).  Already this year, TSC has published the Public Comment Version of its Principles and Commentary on Defensible Disposition, the Public Comment Version of their Primer on Social Media, Second Edition (which we discussed in our panel at Relativity Fest earlier this week), the Public Comment version of its Commentary on BYOD: Principles and Guidance for Developing Policies and Meeting Discovery Obligations and the final version of its new Data Privacy Primer.  Now, TSC is releasing an update to its 2014 commentary on Information Governance.

On Wednesday, TSC and its Working Group 1 on Electronic Document Retention & Production (WG1) announced the publication of the Public Comment Version of The Sedona Conference Commentary on Information Governance, Second Edition.  In 2014, The Sedona Conference published its first edition of the Commentary on Information Governance which recommended a top-down, overarching framework guided by the requirements and goals of all stakeholders that enables an organization to make decisions about information for the good of the overall organization and consistent with senior management’s strategic directions.

This Second Edition of the Commentary accounts for the changes and advances in technology and law over the past four years; underscores the role of IG as part of and complimentary to the business, rather than something separate that adds overhead; and emphasizes the costs of eDiscovery which should drive organizations to focus on IG on the front end, resulting in eDiscovery that is more efficient, less painful, and which allows the organization to reap additional benefits from a business perspective. Additionally, this Second Edition also incorporates the knowledge and guidance embodied in the new and updated Sedona commentaries since 2014 such as The Sedona Principles, Third Edition and the above referenced Principles and Commentary on Defensible Disposition, which was spawned by the work on this commentary.

The structure is largely similar to the 2014 Commentary, with updated information in key places.  The eleven principles are virtually identical to the ones from 2014 (only principles 3 and 7 have slight word changes), so the foundation remains the same.  The eleven principles are:

  1. Organizations should consider implementing an Information Governance program to make coordinated, proactive decisions about information for the benefit of the overall organization that address information-related requirements and manage risks while optimizing value.
  2. An Information Governance program should maintain sufficient independence from any particular department or division to ensure that decisions are made for the benefit of the overall organization.
  3. All stakeholders’ views/needs should be represented in an organization’s Information Governance program.
  4. The strategic objectives of an organization’s Information Governance program should be based upon a comprehensive assessment of information-related practices, requirements, risks, and opportunities.
  5. An Information Governance program should be established with the structure, direction, resources, and accountability to provide reasonable assurance that the program’s objectives will be achieved.
  6. The effective, timely, and consistent disposal of physical and electronic information that no longer needs to be retained should be a core component of any Information Governance program.
  7. When Information Governance decisions require an organization to reconcile conflicting laws or obligations, the organization should act in good faith and give due respect to considerations such as data privacy, data protection, data security, records and information management (RIM), risk management, and sound business practices.
  8. If an organization has acted in good faith in its attempt to reconcile conflicting laws and obligations, a court or other authority reviewing the organization’s actions should do so under a standard of reasonableness according to the circumstances at the time such actions were taken.
  9. An organization should consider reasonable measures to maintain the integrity and availability of long-term information assets throughout their intended useful life.
  10. An organization should consider leveraging the power of new technologies in its Information Governance program.
  11. An organization should periodically review and update its Information Governance program to ensure that it continues to meet the organization’s needs as they evolve.

This Commentary is contained within a 53 page PDF file, so it’s certainly a reasonable read (less than one court case we recently covered).

The Sedona Conference Commentary on Information Governance, Second Edition is open for public comment through December 5, 2018. As always, questions and comments regarding the Commentary may be sent to comments@sedonaconference.org and the drafting team will carefully consider all comments received and determine what edits are appropriate for the final version.  You know the drill.

Also, I’m sad to pass along the news that Nigel Murray passed away a couple of nights after his two-year battle with brain cancer.  I did not know Nigel well, but, in the couple of times I encountered him (including this thought leader interview a few years ago), I found him delightful and very engaging. Craig Ball has written a wonderful tribute to Nigel on his Ball in Your Court blog here.  My condolences to his family and to all in the profession who had the good fortune to work with him or get to know him personally or professionally.

So, what do you think?  Does your organization have a formal Information Governance program?  As Tom O’Connor and I discussed in a recent webcast, many organizations don’t.  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Court Denies Party’s Request to Produce in Native Format Instead of TIFF: eDiscovery Case Law

In the case IN RE SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION, MDL 2591, No. 16-2788-JWL (D. Kan. Sept. 25, 2018), Kansas Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara, stating that “there is no dispute that documents in TIFF format are easier to work with and enable depositions and court proceedings to run more smoothly”, denied the request of party Louis Dreyfus Company Grains Merchandising LLC (LDC) to relieve it from the production requirements of the case’s ESI Protocol Order to produce electronically stored information (ESI) in TIFF image file format and instead allow LDC to produce in native format.

Case Background

In this multi-district corn litigation, on August 16, 2018, the Court ordered LDC to complete its document production by September 6.  On August 31, LDC sought an extension, asserting that technical complications and infrastructure limitations made it impossible to meet the deadline. There was no mention in LDC’s motion or supporting briefs of any difficulty LDC would have producing the documents in TIFF format as required by the ESI Protocol Order. The court granted LDC’s request and ordered LDC to produce “as many documents as possible (which should be most)” by September 28; and to produce the remainder of the documents by October 12.

On September 5 and 11, LDC produced a large number of documents in native format, stating it did so in order to get the documents to Syngenta as expeditiously as possible, asserting that converting documents to TIFF adds “substantial time to production.”  Syngenta complained to LDC about the production format on September 11, noting that production of documents in native format—with only the first page of a document numbered, rather than page-by-page bates numbering—creates confusion when a party wishes to reference a particular page of a document during depositions, in court filings, and at trial.

In a September 24 letter brief, LDC asked the court, for the first time, to relieve it from the production requirements of the ESI Protocol Order, arguing that the exception to the ESI production protocol applied because LDC “has been required to produce a huge number of documents under extreme time pressure” and characterizing the lack of Bates stamps on documents for depositions as a “minor inconvenience” to Syngenta.  LDC stated it “is converting these files to TIFF format, but Syngenta is unreasonably insisting that all documents be in TIFF before the deadline.”

Judge’s Ruling

Judge O’Hara stated: “LDC’s arguments are unpersuasive. First, there is no dispute that documents in TIFF format are easier to work with and enable depositions and court proceedings to run more smoothly. As recognized by the Sedona Conference, they allow a party to refer to particular portions of a document—perhaps in designating confidentiality or directing a witness to particular language—by page number.

Second, the ESI Protocol Order requires a party seeking to deviate from the image/TIFF-format production to “promptly” notify the requesting party as soon as it identifies a source of data to which the protocol should not apply (because it would be unduly burdensome or impractical). Here, LDC did not notify Syngenta or the court before producing documents in native format. LDC made no mention of its perceived formatting production issue in its previous briefs addressing Syngenta’s proposed search terms or seeking extensions of the production deadlines.

Third, LDC has offered no evidence to support its “burdensome” and “impracticality” arguments. To the contrary, LDC informed Syngenta on September 14, 2018, that converting the native files in its previous document productions would take approximately two weeks. Thus, the first TIFF production should occur by the September 28, 2018 deadline for the majority of LDC’s documents. As for documents yet to be produced, LDC does not state how long producing them in the first instance in TIFF format (as opposed to native format with a subsequent conversion) might take its vendor. Accordingly, the court is not convinced that it is impossible for LDC to meet the October 12, 2018 deadline for final production.”

Noting that “the court is determined to keep this case moving forward” to keep depositions on schedule, Judge O’Hara denied LDC’s request that it be permitted to complete its document production in native format only by the October 12, 2018 deadline.

So, what do you think?  Should the court have given LDC more leeway or time to produce the documents in TIFF format?  Should the parties have been able to work out a document numbering scheme for documents to be referenced in depositions?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Wednesday’s Relativity Fest Sessions: eDiscovery Trends

As we noted yesterday and Monday, the 2018 Relativity Fest conference is going on this week, CloudNine will once again be here as a Silver Sponsor and I have been covering the show for eDiscovery Daily.  Let’s check out sessions lined up for today, the last day of the conference.

This year, Relativity Fest has been September 30 through October 3 in Chicago at The Hilton Chicago.  As a development partner in the Relativity ecosystem, CloudNine is at the conference and will be there today to provide demonstrations of our Outpost for Relativity capability that automatically ingests and loads data into Relativity based on your specified criteria.  Also, I had a great time speaking at the Social Media session yesterday, moderated by Phil Favro, with Amy Sellars, Craig Carpenter and Ignatius Grande!

Here is one of the eDiscovery-related sessions for today (it’s a short day):

9:00 AM – 10:00 AM:

LIE230322 – e-Discovery Law and Practice: Case Studies in Cooperation

From The Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation and the judges across the nation who have endorsed it to the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, cooperation in e-discovery has become an important consideration in the United States and internationally as well. However, is cooperation in e-discovery even possible in an adversarial system? Even if it is possible, is it practical? How can you cooperate with an adversary? What about transparency in the process? What do other nations think about cooperation in e-discovery and e-disclosure?

Join us for a case study in e-discovery cooperation where e-discovery teams for both plaintiffs and corporate defendants discuss how they used technology and e-discovery workflows to not only conduct e-discovery with cooperation, but do it better, faster, and cheaper. This session has been submitted for CLE accreditation.

This session has been submitted for CLE accreditation.

Speakers Include: David Horrigan – Discovery Counsel and Legal Education Director, Relativity, Chad Roberts – Discovery Counsel, eDiscovery Co-Counsel, PLLC, Kelly Twigger – Principal, ESI Attorneys LLC, Suzanne Clark – Discovery Counsel, eDiscovery Co-Counsel, PLLC, Kathleen Porter Kristiansen – Senior Consultant and Solicitor, Risk Management & Cyber Security, Advanced Discovery.

Hopefully, you enjoyed Relativity Fest this year!  If not, there’s always next year!

So, what do you think?  Did you attend Relativity Fest this year?  Was it worthwhile?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Tuesday’s Relativity Fest Sessions: eDiscovery Trends

As we noted yesterday the 2018 Relativity Fest conference is going on this week, CloudNine will once again be here as a Silver Sponsor and I will be covering the show for eDiscovery Daily.  Let’s check out some of the sessions lined up for today.

This year, Relativity Fest is September 30 through October 3 in Chicago at The Hilton Chicago.  If you’re in the Chicago area, you can still make it for nearly all of the conference or attend on a one-day pass.  As a development partner in the Relativity ecosystem, CloudNine will once again be the conference and will be there to provide demonstrations of our Outpost for Relativity capability that automatically ingests and loads data into Relativity based on your specified criteria.  Also, I’m delighted to say that I will also once again be speaking at a session at the conference today!

Here are some of the eDiscovery-related sessions for today:

8:30 AM – 9:30 AM:

LIE227578 – International e-Discovery and Data Protection

2018 has been a significant year for international e-discovery, and the annual international session will address important issues that have affected cross-order discovery and data law generally, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), United States v. Microsoft, and the CLOUD Act, as well as upcoming important topics, such as the EU’s ePrivacy Regulation.  This session has been submitted for CLE accreditation.

Speakers Include: Chris Dale – Founder, eDisclosure Information Project, Heidi Stenberg – Principal | Assurance Services | Fraud Investigation & Dispute Services, EY, Karyn Harty – Partner, McCann FitzGerald, Karl Hennessee – Senior Vice President, Litigation, Investigations & Regulatory Affairs, Airbus, Johnny Lee – Principal & National Practice Leader, Forensic Technology Services, Grant Thornton US LLP.

11:10 AM – 12:10 PM:

PD188410 – Fostering Inclusiveness: Promoting Diversity and Inclusion on Your e-Discovery Team

Fostering environments that provide openness and inclusion has been proven to drive team performance, innovation, and employee retention. Recognizing the benefits of diversity in the workplace is only the first step—how do you build a culture of diversity into your e-discovery business? Relativity Fest is a unique opportunity to have a productive dialogue around how we, as a community, promote diversity both within our own organizations and within the larger e-discovery and legal world.

This 60-minute panel will discuss ways of driving inclusion in your practice and inspire a vision of an inclusive e-discovery community. The panel will cover:

  • Why diversity matters to e-discovery
  • How to foster a culture of inclusion, diversity, and openness, as well as promote diversity of thought
  • Strategies for finding and retaining diverse talent
  • How to make inclusion part of your e-discovery DNA
  • Selling diversity initiatives internally to your organization and gaining alignment on why it’s an important investment
  • Unlocking inclusion with global e-discovery teams

Speakers Include: Drew Stern – Founder & Co-CEO, Esquify, Elizabeth Anastasia – Director of Technology Operations, Perkins Coie LLP, Will Syvongsa – Technical Business Analyst, Relativity, Maria Zanfini – Vice President & Senior Managing Counsel, Investigations, Mastercard, Antonio Avant – Manager, Litigation Technology, Troutman Sanders eMerge, Mary Mack, ACEDS.

LIE230321 – ILTA and Relativity Fest Present Finding the Fun in Writing Fundamentals

Writing skills are mission critical for lawyers and paralegals, and studies show that even those in the technical fields advance faster and are more effective with colleagues if they know how to write well.

The International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) began Finding the Fun in Writing Fundamentals, a legal technology writing skills program, at ILTACON, and now ILTA and Relativity are pleased to bring it to you in an ILTA webinar live from Relativity Fest. Whether you’re trying to write motions, pleadings, effective emails, team bios, technical training manuals, client timekeeping entries, blogs, or social media posts, this program will guide you through the writing process and help you communicate better in the legal technology workplace.  In addition, we’ll examine legal matters where writing errors have influenced the outcome of the case.

Join us for writing best practices from Gary Kinder of Wordrake, a nationally recognized writing coach who has appeared on The New York Times Best Sellers List, and Relativity’s David Horrigan, a longtime legal author and former reporter and assistant editor at The National Law Journal—with retired US Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck of DLA Piper providing guidance and sharing some of the biggest legal writing blunders he’s seen—in this fun and educational program.

This session has been submitted for CLE accreditation.

Speakers Include: David Horrigan – Discovery Counsel and Legal Education Director, Relativity, Honorable Andrew Peck – Retired U.S. Magistrate Judge (S.D.N.Y) and Senior Counsel, DLA Piper, Gary Kinder – Founder, WordRake.

3:40 PM – 4:40 PM:

LIE227576 – Social Media Law and Practice

Join Relativity and the Coalition of Technology Resources for Lawyers in this session covering the latest case law and rules on the discovery of social media data, including the 2017 amendments to Fed. R. Evid. 902, as well as practical considerations for dealing with social media data.  This session has been submitted for CLE accreditation.

Speakers Include: Phil Favro – Consultant, Driven, Inc., Amy Sellers – Associate General Counsel, Walmart, Craig Carpenter – CEO, X1, Doug Austin – VP of Products, CloudNine.

5:00 PM – 6:00 PM:

LIE231935 – e-Discovery in the Cloud: Legal, Ethical and Security Considerations

As e-discovery and the legal profession continue to join the rest of business and society in the move to the cloud, legal teams are encountering new legal, ethical, and security issues. Jurisdictional considerations, information governance—including system security and data privacy—and ethical considerations, including ethical requirements for technological competence, are important issues. Join us for a new version of this popular session with timely new updates, including 2018 case law and regulatory developments.  This session has been submitted for CLE accreditation.

Speakers Include: David Horrigan – Discovery Counsel and Legal Education Director, Relativity, David Kilgore – Corporate Counsel, Rackspace, Karl Hennessee – Senior Vice President, Litigation, Investigations & Regulatory Affairs, Airbus, Dennis Garcia – Assistant General Counsel, Microsoft.

To register to attend Relativity Fest, click here.  It’s not too late!  And, the Cubbies are in the baseball playoffs again (in as a Wild Card – sorry Cubbies!) – though the Astros are going to win it all again this year.  Hey, I was right when I predicted it last year!

So, what do you think?  Are you attending Relativity Fest this year?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Whee! What a Great Event at the Second Annual WiE Legal Technology Showcase and Conference: eDiscovery Trends

As I noted yesterday, the Women in eDiscovery (WiE), Houston Chapter, in partnership with South Texas College of Law and the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS), hosted the second annual “Legal Technology Showcase & Conference” yesterday.  Here are a few pictorial highlights of yesterday’s conference (with a few comments thrown in).

The conference ran from 8:30am to 4:15pm, with a networking happy hour from 4:30pm to 7:00pm.  Both events were at South Texas College of Law in downtown Houston.  Sessions were interspersed with networking time of at least 30 minutes in between, which gave plenty of opportunity to catch up with colleagues and old friends.  The event was a huge success, with a reported total of 239 attendees (considerably more than last year’s inaugural event).  After two years, it may be safe to say that this annual event has already become the most significant eDiscovery conference in the Houston area!

I did not attend the eDiscovery Fundamentals session conducted from 8:30am-9:30am by Scott Lombard who is the Senior Vice President of eDiscovery at JND Legal Administration (I’m sure it was great!).  But I did attend the other sessions.

The keynote address (The Future Practice of Law: AI, Blockchain and Quantum Computing) was presented by Shawnna Hoffman, Global Co-Leader of the IBM Cognitive Legal Practice, IBM from 10:00am-11:00am.  Shawnna is a co-founder of WiE, with years of experience in legal technology with providers like LexisNexis and Navigant.  I took a picture of the room during Shawnna’s keynote address here:

Shawnna did a good job of discussing several aspects of AI, blockchain and quantum computing and related them to eDiscovery and legal technology.  One specific example she related regarding Judge Anthony Capizzi in Montgomery County, Ohio where IBM Watson interfaces with the county’s case management system, providing up-to-the-minute summaries of relevant information, patterns for things such as drug use, which help the judge and team understand the ups and downs in the child’s life.

The next session was Data Privacy & GDPR | The Age of the GDPR – A Perspective Four Months In from 11:30am-12:30pm, with Moderator: Karen Bell, Consul General, British Consulate General Houston and panelists Sheryl Falk, Partner, Winston & Strawn; Emily Fedeles, Associate, BakerHostetler; Helen Geib, General Counsel, QDiscovery; Carolyn Southerland, Managing Director, Morae Global; Thom Wisinski, Chief Knowledge Officer, Haynes & Boone.

That panel (pictured below) had a lot of useful information about how things are going four months into GDPR.  One of the things they mentioned was the Ticketmaster data breach earlier this year which affected EU users and for which Monzo, a mobile-only bank based in the UK, stated that it had spotted signs of the breach and warned Ticketmaster 2 1/2 months earlier than it was reported by Ticketmaster after around 50 of the bank’s customers reported fraudulent transactions on their accounts.  Whoops.

No GDPR violations/fines have been reported – yet.

After a box lunch, the Discovery Project Management: Navigating the Workflow (and budgets) session was conducted from 1:30pm-2:30pm, with Moderator: Scott Zimmerman, Manager of Automated Legal Services, Haynes & Boone and panelists Sarah Buckman, Discovery Consultant, Litigation Solutions, Inc.; Justin Henderson, Senior Project Manager, Consilio; George Mavris, Manager IT Appl – HR / Document Production / ECM, Citgo Petroleum; Jean Rivers, Director of Litigation Support, Berg & Androphy.  This terrific panel did a great job of not only keeping the topic light and funny, but also involving the audience and getting them to share some of their experiences with regard to project management experiences.  Here’s a picture of that panel:

That leaves the panel I was on – AI and TAR for Legal: Use Cases for Discovery and Beyond – from 3:00pm-4:00pm.  The panel was moderated by: Jackie Rosborough, Discovery & Trial Consultant (and Executive Director of Wie), with panelists May Tal Gongolevsky, Counsel, BakerHostetler; Ben Sexton, Director of eDiscovery, JND Legal Administration; Maren Strandevold, Solicitor, Haynes and Boone CDG, LLP and me.  We discussed the ins and outs of AI and TAR, particularly related to the terminology (not everyone sees TAR the same way), the challenges to successful TAR projects (including types of cases, file types and other issues that are more or less conducive to TAR) and what attorneys should expect from TAR.  Obviously, I couldn’t take a picture of our own panel, so you will have to take my word for it.  :o)

The event was possible due to a number of sponsors (pictured below) including CloudNine, who was a Premier Platinum Sponsor and we were happy to participate!  We look forward to next year’s event!

So, what do you think?  Are you based in Houston?  If so, you absolutely have to attend next year’s event!  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Today is the Day for the Second Annual WiE Legal Technology Showcase and Conference: eDiscovery Best Practices

Today, the Women in eDiscovery (WiE), Houston Chapter, in partnership with South Texas College of Law and the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS), will be hosting the second annual “Legal Technology Showcase & Conference”.  The one-day technology showcase will bring together legal thought leadership, innovative technology providers, practitioners, legal support staff and law school students in one venue to network and collaborate on current legal industry trends and innovative technology products.

Thanks to South Texas College of Law, ACEDS, conference sponsors and technology exhibitors, the event is free to attend and open to all professionals within the legal industry including attorneys, litigation support and legal operations professionals, paralegals, legal IT staff, court reporters, consultants, recruiters and vendors.

Today’s event will feature several educational sessions led by industry experts and thought leaders along with a full day of technology exhibits from leading legal technology providers. The event agenda includes a continental breakfast, welcome keynote, three educational sessions, lunch, all day exhibitions, and a post-event happy hour.  Attendees will also have the opportunity to enter in a drawing to win a CEDS scholarship courtesy of ACEDS.

Here is a link to the agenda and also a link to the list of speakers for the conference.

I’m excited to be one of the speakers again this year on the panel discussion AI and TAR for Legal: Use Cases for Discovery and Beyond at 3:00pm and CloudNine is also a Premier Platinum Sponsor for the event (as well as an Exhibitor, so you can come learn about us too).

The conference runs from 8:30am to 4:15pm, with a networking happy hour from 4:30pm to 7:00pm.  Both events are at South Texas College of Law in downtown Houston.

Here’s the bad news.  Unfortunately, I checked last night and they say registrations are closed for the event.  So, unless you’re already registered or know somebody – slip me a $20 and I’ll see what I can do ;o) – you’re out of luck for this year’s event.  Why would I tell you about an event that you can no longer register for?  So, you’ll register earlier next year, that’s why!  :o)

So, what do you think?  Are you going to today’s event?  If so, I’ll see you there!  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Also, I want to thank BakerHostetler for hosting an event on “Executive Presence” yesterday, which was followed by a happy hour.  I learned a lot about how successful executives demonstrate presence (not just at work but in all situations) from a terrific panel and some of my colleagues in a breakout session.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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