Our Insights on eDiscovery

I Wouldn’t Con You, But ILTACON is Just a Week Away: eDiscovery Trends

August 22, 2016

Believe it or not, it’s time for another ILTACON! ILTACON is the annual conference for the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA). This year, it is being held in the shadow of Washington, DC in Alexandria, VA at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center. And, once again, eDiscovery Daily will be covering the show! If you’re in the DC area, you may want to check out a few of these sessions regarding eDiscovery and Information Governance.

There’s a New TAR Case Law Primer Published by The Sedona Conference: eDiscovery Best Practices

August 19, 2016

One of the major topics discussed during last month’s panel discussion at The Masters Conference and also last week during our ACEDS webinar was the debate over the current state of judiciary acceptance of technology assisted review (TAR). Whether intentional or not, to help with that debate The Sedona Conference® has just published the Public Comment Version of a new TAR Case Law Primer.

Here’s an Interesting Interview Conducted Using a Cool Conversation Tool: eDiscovery Trends

August 18, 2016

If you regularly read sites that discuss legal technology and other important issues for the legal profession, you’re certainly familiar with the site Above the Law, which takes a behind the scenes look at the world of law and covers it on several levels, including big law, small firms, law schools, finance, CLE and, of course, eDiscovery. Regarding eDiscovery, their latest interview gives you an opportunity to learn more about our company, CloudNine.

Here’s a New Twist to Text Overlays on Image-Only PDF Files That Can Be Even More Problematic: eDiscovery Best Practices

August 17, 2016

Remember when we discussed the issue of text overlays on image-only PDF files (typically represented as Bates numbers) and the problems they cause? Well, we found a variation to the issue that is even more of a problem.

Court Declines to Sanction Defendant for Deletion of Former Employee’s Email Account: eDiscovery Case Law

August 16, 2016

In Moore v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, Washington District Judge Robert J. Bryan denied without prejudice the plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Defendant’s Willful Spoliation of Evidence for deleting her email account after she was terminated, finding a lack of duty preserve or bad faith on the defendant’s part and minimal (if any) prejudice to the plaintiff.

Here is Where You Can Catch Last Week’s ACEDS Webinar: eDiscovery Trends

August 15, 2016

Our webinar panel discussion conducted by ACEDS last week was highly attended, well reviewed and generated some interesting discussion. Were you unable to attend last week’s webinar? Good news, we have it for you here, on demand, whenever you want to check it out.

eDiscovery Daily Has a New Look!: eDiscovery Redesign

August 12, 2016

If you’ve been reading our blog the past couple of days, you may have noticed that our blog has a new look. Here’s why.

Thanks to EDRM, There Will Be a Way to Assess the Data Security of Your Providers: eDiscovery Best Practices

August 11, 2016

Do you ever wonder or worry about how securely your providers and partners handle your sensitive data during the discovery process? Then, this latest project from EDRM will help address those worries.

Don’t Miss Today’s Webinar – How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery!: eDiscovery Trends

August 10, 2016

Today is your chance to catch a terrific discussion about automation in eDiscovery and, particularly an in-depth discussion about technology assisted review (TAR) and whether it lives up to the current hype!

English Court Rules that Respondents Can Use Predictive Coding in Contested Case: eDiscovery Case Law

August 9, 2016

In Brown v BCA Trading, et. al., Mr. Registrar Jones ruled that, with “nothing, as yet, to suggest that predictive coding will not be able to identify the documents which would otherwise be identified through, for example, keyword search”, “predictive coding must be the way forward” in this dispute between parties as to whether the Respondents could use predictive coding to respond to eDisclosure requests.