Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

“Master” Your Knowledge of eDiscovery With This Conference in Denver Today: eDiscovery Trends

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

The Master’s Conference brings together leading experts and professionals from law firms, corporations and the bench to develop strategies, practices and resources for managing the information life cycle.  This year’s Denver event – “Rocky Career? Facing Mountains Of Data Challenges?” – covers topics ranging from technology evaluations to forces changing eDiscovery to analytics and social media discovery.  Cybersecurity and data privacy are covered too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what do you think?  Are you in Denver today?  If so, check it out!  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what do you think?  Are you surprised the extent of the need for digital information longer than ten years?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Court Grants Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Defendants for Intentional Spoliation: eDiscovery Case Law

In Omnigen Research et. al. v. Wang et. al., No. 16-00268 (D. Oregon, May 23, 2017), Oregon District Judge Michael J. McShane granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Terminating Spoliation Sanctions and agreed to issue an Order of Default Judgment in favor of the plaintiffs (while dismissing the defendants’ counterclaims) due to the defendants’ intentional destruction of evidence on several occasions.

Case Background

In this case (for breach of contract, intentional interference with economic relations, misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, false advertising and unfair competition, and breach of fiduciary duty filed against a former employee of the plaintiff, Yongqiang Wang), the plaintiffs alleged that in 2012, while still employed by the plaintiff, he stole trade secrets and created two rival businesses, including the defendant company Bioshen.  The plaintiffs, concerned in part about the possible destruction of evidence early in the case, filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which was granted in May 2016, to force the defendants to “immediately produce to Plaintiffs all electronic media in their custody, possession or control for purposes of verifying that they do not contain Plaintiff’s confidential and/or copyrighted material.”

Eleven days later, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause because Wang had left for China without producing his laptop as required by the Preliminary Injunction. A hearing on the issue was held and, in addition to other requirements, the defendants were ordered to “download all of the contents of the computer in China on a portable hard drive and have it mailed to defense counsel within 7 days, and deliver any computers or portable storage data to defense counsel by 5/27/2016.”

The plaintiffs were required to seek court intervention regarding discovery on multiple occasions because of the failure of the defense to adequately respond to their requests for production.  Ultimately, the plaintiffs filed their Motion for Terminating Spoliation Sanctions on 3/3/2017, with oral arguments heard on the motion on 4/18/2017.

Judge’s Ruling

Before detailing all of the instances where the defendants “intentionally” deleted or destroyed evidence, Judge McShane stated:

“As stated during oral arguments on 4/18/2017, the Court finds the destruction of evidence by the defendants was intentional. The plaintiffs’ Motion for Terminating Spoliation Sanctions describes in full detail the many ways the defendants intentionally hid or destroyed evidence in this case. In summary, Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made their desktop computer unavailable by “donating” it to Goodwill, that the defendants intentionally deleted thousands of documents from Wang’s personal Lenovo computer, that the defendants intentionally deleted and refused to produce relevant emails from multiple email accounts, and that the defendants intentionally destroyed metadata. These actions have deprived the Plaintiffs of evidence central to their case and undermined the Court’s ability to enter a judgment based on the evidence. For these reasons, default judgment and terminating sanctions for the spoliation of evidence is warranted FRCP 37(b)(2), Rule 37(e), and the Court’s inherent authority to sanction abusive litigation practices.”

As a result, Judge McShane granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Terminating Spoliation Sanctions and agreed to issue an Order of Default Judgment in favor of the plaintiffs while dismissing the defendants’ counterclaims.

So, what do you think?  With the new Rule 37(e) (since December 2015), do you think it takes this level of intent to obtain significant sanctions?  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.

Over 80 Percent of Hacking Related Breaches Were Related to Password Issues: Cybersecurity Trends

I’ve referred to last year’s Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR) in several webcasts lately (including this one) and realized that this year’s report should have already come out by now.  Sure enough it has, about a month and a half ago.  Let’s see what the findings are.

Last year’s report (covered here) started with the Yogi Berra quote “It’s like déjà vu, all over again.”  This year’s report (available for download from here), despite the dire statistics below, starts with a bit more positivity with a quote from Roman philosopher Pliny the Elder: “Hope is the pillar of the world.”  Way to stay positive, Verizon!

Some interesting statistics from the 76 page PDF report:

  • 81% of hacking-related breaches used stolen passwords and/or weak passwords.
  • Three-quarters (75%) of breaches were perpetrated by outsiders, which, of course, means that one-quarter (25%) involved internal actors.
  • 51% of breaches involved organized criminal groups, while 18% were conducted by state-affiliated actors.
  • 51% of the data breaches involved malware.
  • 66% of malware was installed through malicious email attachments.
  • 73% of the breaches were financially motivated.
  • Industries affected the most: financial institutions (24%), healthcare organizations (15%), public sector entities (12%) with retail and accommodation entities combined to account for 15% of breaches.
  • Ransomware has moved from the 22nd most common variety of malware in the 2014 DBIR to the fifth most common in this year’s data.

While the report is a whopping 76 page PDF, it’s (once again) chock full of graphics and statistics which makes it easier to read than the size of the report indicates.  And, as always, Verizon has some fun with the report (see how many song titles you can find referenced within it).  The report covers everything from breach trends to an industry breakdown to a review of each type of incident classification pattern and even provides a month-by month year in review of key data breach occurrences.

You can download a copy of the report here.  Once again, you can register and download the report or just choose to download the report (which I did).  This is our third year covering the report (here is a link to the post from two years ago) and if you want to check out a comprehensive and interesting report on data breaches over the past year, this remains my favorite report.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever experienced any data breaches, either personally or professionally?  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.

Here’s an Opportunity to Learn How to Fix “Pitfalls” and “Potholes” in Your eDiscovery Project: eDiscovery Best Practices

If you’ve ever managed a discovery project for litigation, investigations or audits, you know that “Murphy’s Law” dictates that a number of “pitfalls” and “potholes” can (and will) occur that can derail your project. These issues can add considerable cost to your discovery effort through unexpected rework and also cause you to miss important deadlines or even incur the wrath of a judge for not following accepted rules and principles for discovery.  Thanks to our friends at ACEDS, you can learn more about these “pitfalls” and “potholes” that you can encounter during the discovery life cycle from Information Governance to Production and how to address them to keep your discovery project on track.

Today’s ACEDS webinar at noon CT (1pm ET, 10am PT) is titled Pitfalls and Potholes to Avoid in Your eDiscovery Projects.  I’ll be presenting the webcast with Karen DeSouza, Director of Review Services at CloudNine and we will discuss twenty(!) different “pitfalls” and “potholes” that you can avoid to keep your project on track.  Examples of issues being discussed include:

  • Avoiding the Mistake in Assuming that Discovery Begins When the Case is Filed
  • How to Proactively Address Inadvertent Privilege Productions
  • Up Front Planning to Reduce Review Costs
  • How to Avoid Getting Stuck with a Bad Production from Opposing Counsel
  • Understanding Your Data to Drive Discovery Decisions
  • Minimizing Potential ESI Spoliation Opportunities
  • Ways to Avoid Potential Data Breaches
  • How to Avoid Processing Mistakes that Can Slow You Down
  • Common Searching Mistakes and How to Avoid Them
  • Techniques to Increase Review Efficiency and Effectiveness
  • Checklist of Items to Ensure a Smooth and Accurate Production

To sign up for today’s webcast, click here.  Hope to see you there!

So, what do you think?  Have you encountered “pitfalls” or “potholes” in your discovery projects?  If so, please feel free to join us!  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Court Grants Summary Judgment After Plaintiff’s Spoliation Motion Denied: eDiscovery Case Law

In Taylor v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., d/b/a Rite-Aid, No. 16-00474 (D. Oregon, May 12, 2017), Oregon District Judge Marco A. Hernandez granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment after denying the plaintiff’s request for spoliation sanctions against the defendant for failing to preserve store videos that were taken on the day of her slip and fall in the defendant’s store.

Case Background

In this slip and fall case in a defendant store, the plaintiff sued the defendant after she slipped and fell in a large puddle, eventually claiming “significant pain” to her hand and wrist.  As a result, the plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the defendant “a) failed to make the premises reasonably safe; b) failed to take reasonable steps to promptly remove the puddle of liquid from the Rite-Aid store floor; c) failed to adequately warn Plaintiff by placing cones around the area of the liquid on the floor; and d) failed to properly secure the area, knowing that the puddle of liquid could pose additional risks to patrons of the store.”  After discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment.

On the day of the spill, the store manager reviewed the security tapes from the time of the incident, and did so again a day or two later with the defendant’s Risk Management group, and found that the cameras did not cover the area of the spill.  As a result, the defendant did not keep the footage of that day’s events, adhering to its policy of deleting video footage every thirty-seven days.  The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s failure to preserve was the reason for her lack of evidence and asked the court to deny summary judgment as a sanction for the defendant’s destruction of the security video.  The defendant argued it had no obligation to preserve the video because the video did not show the spill itself and, therefore, would not have contained any relevant evidence.

Judge’s Ruling

In considering the facts associated with deletion of the video footage, Judge Hernandez stated: “Defendant did not destroy the videos in response to this litigation. Cases make clear that ‘in response to litigation’ means after a complaint has been filed, a discovery request has been made, a letter openly threatens litigations, or some other reason indicating that litigation is likely… Plaintiff herself points out that the surveillance footage is erased from Defendant’s hard drive every thirty-seven days…The erasure occurred when Defendant knew only that Plaintiff had fallen and hurt her wrist. There was no basis for Defendant to conclude that litigation was likely.”  As a result, Judge Hernandez concluded that “Sanctions for spoliation are inappropriate here.”

Therefore, in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Judge Hernandez stated: “Plaintiff’s arguments are not supported by direct evidence or logical inference. Instead, she relies on speculation and conjecture which is insufficient to create an issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.”

So, what do you think?  Do plaintiffs in “slip and fall” cases face an uphill battle in obtaining sanctions for deletion of video at the site of an accident?  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.

If You’re a Small Firm, Learn Here Why There Has Never Been a Better Time to Embrace eDiscovery: eDiscovery Trends

Until recently, state of the art eDiscovery technology was only available to the largest law firms and corporations. Smaller firms and organizations were essentially priced out of the market and couldn’t afford the solutions that could be used by the “big boys” to manage their discovery workloads. Times have changed – thanks to cloud-based, software-as-a-service (“SaaS”) automated solutions that have made full-featured eDiscovery solutions affordable for even small and solo firms.  What do you need to do to take advantage of that?

On Wednesday, June 28 at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast How SaaS Automation Has Revolutionized eDiscovery for Solo and Small Firms.  This one-hour webcast will discuss how SaaS automation technology has revolutionized eDiscovery for solo and small firms today and why there has never been a better time for those firms to embrace eDiscovery.  Examples of topics being discussed include:

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

I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Karen DeSouza, Director of Review Services at CloudNine and we will discuss why there has never been a better time for those firms to embrace eDiscovery.  To register for the webcast, click here.

Also, my colleague Julia Romero Peter will be in Denver on Tuesday, June 20 for the Denver leg of The Master’s Conference.  The conference will be held at the NATIV Hotel Denver at 1612 Wazee St, Denver, CO 80202.  If you’re going to be in Denver that day (or close enough to come in for it), you can register here for the full day event (or attend for just half a day, if that’s all your schedule permits).  Julia will be moderating a panel discussion on Data, Discovery, and Decisions: Extending Discovery From Collection To Creation, at 11:15am on that day, with a group of knowledgeable panelists.  If you’re in Denver, feel free to check it out!

So, what do you think?  Are you a small firm struggling to get control of eDiscovery, at a price your firm can afford?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

The “Belt and Suspenders” Approach for Effective Communication: eDiscovery Best Practices

Having recently experienced a potential communication issue with a client, I thought it would be a good time to revisit this topic…

To be a good manager, you need to be a good communicator.  Effective communication is a key part of effective project management, whether that communication is internally within the project team or externally with your client.  It is so easy for miscommunications to occur that can derail your project and cause deadlines to be missed, or work product to be incomplete or not meet the client’s expectations.

I like to employ a “belt and suspenders” approach to communication with clients as much as possible, by discussing requirements or issues with the client and then following up with documentation to confirm the understanding.  Sometimes what you thought you heard or what they thought they said may not match, so the documentation is key to making sure you’re on the same page (literally).  :o)

Following up with documentation of the discussion seems obvious and many project managers start out that way – they discuss project requirements and services with a client and then formally document into a contract or other binding agreement.  However, as time progresses, many project managers start to slip in following up to document changes discussed to scope or approach to handling specific exceptions with clients.  It’s the little day to day discussions and decisions that aren’t documented that can often come back to haunt you. The other extreme is where a project manager communicates solely via email and keeps the project team waiting for the client to respond to the latest email – sometimes, you need to pick up the phone and agree on the approach quickly to keep things moving.  Unless there is a critical decision for which documented agreement is required to proceed, discussing and documenting keeps the project moving while ensuring each decision gets documented.

I can think of several instances where this approach helped avoid major issues, especially with the follow-up agreement or email.  If nothing else, it gives you something to point back to if miscommunication occurs.  Recently, we agreed to process some data for a client with our professional services team to follow up to perform specific searches to identify potentially responsive ESI to review and (for the documents classified as responsive and not privileged during review) produce.  We discussed the requirements with the client and I sent an email which documented the proposed approach and the searches we were to perform for the client to approve, which he did.  We then proceeded to process and search the ESI as agreed to in the email.

When we reviewed the search results with the client, it was determined that there was a misunderstanding on one of the searches related to relevant time frame – we understood that emails before a certain date were relevant, but the client said it was the other way around and that emails on or after that date were relevant.  Fortunately, the client was understanding and the rework was minimal, but having that approved email that documented our understanding was good to have – just in case.  We delivered what we promised and our reputation with that client remains strong – in part, thanks to the “belt and suspenders” approach!

So, what do you think?  Have you had miscommunications with clients because of inadequate documentation? 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.

Despite Parties’ “Significant Animosity”, Court Orders Them to Meet and Confer: eDiscovery Case Law

In Elhannon LLC v. F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co., No. 2:14-cv-262 (D. Vermont, Apr. 18, 2017), Vermont District Judge William K. Sessions, III granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s renewed motion to compel, denied motions for sanction by each party against the other, and ordered the parties to engage in further meet-and-confer efforts to narrow their differences on the appropriate scope of discovery.

Case Background

In a breach of contract and consumer fraud dispute over pest infestation in the plaintiff’s tree nursery, the parties had numerous disputes over whether the defendant had met its discovery obligations.  In February 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel several categories of documents, including printouts of all screens from the defendant’s Electronic Landscape Manager (“ELM”) program, internal correspondence and emails pertaining to the plaintiff, internal financial and other analysis documents pertaining to the plaintiff, compensation and personnel file materials for the two key defendant employees on the plaintiff’s contracts, and documents from the defendant’s other electronic systems.

In most categories, the defendant’s arguments primarily related to either a contention that all responsive documents had already been produced, the documents requested were either irrelevant or not specific to the plaintiff or were already produced via another electronic system.  As for the internal correspondence and emails, the plaintiff contended that the defendant’s email searches were “haphazard, overly narrow, devoid of proper guidance by counsel, and unreliable to say the least”, noting that several custodians were either not provided with search terms, or the terms were too limited or may have not performed any searches at all.  The defendant did acknowledge that it “recently recovered a number of emails previously not produced due to a gap in the technology used to perform its earlier email searches” and did supplement the production with those.

The plaintiff renewed its motion on the ground that recent deposition testimony demonstrates that Defendant’s prior representations to this Court asserting complete discovery responses were false.  In addition, both parties cross-moved for discovery sanctions, the plaintiff’s request was against the defendant failing to satisfy their discovery obligations and the defendant’s request was against the plaintiff for failing to meet and confer.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Sessions noted that “the parties’ filings indicate that counsel have approached each other with significant animosity, and that substantial challenges exist to narrowing discovery disputes.”  Taking several of the document categories in consideration, Judge Sessions ordered the defendant to produce additional relevant, responsive data and documents from those sources.

With regard to the email search terms, Judge Sessions stated:

“Given the parties’ failure to engage in a comprehensive meet and confer or to reach agreement on the scope of email search terms, the Court will require the parties to do so now, rather than grant Elhannon’s motion on this ground. If necessary, the parties may request the Court to approve a list of appropriate email search terms after their meet-and-confer.”

Judge Sessions did not find that the plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer prior to filing the instant motion warranted the imposition of sanctions, nor did he find that “either party has provided sufficient reasons to justify sanctions against the other for failing to produce documents.”

So, what do you think?  Should parties face sanctions for failing to meet and confer?  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.