In Hyles v. New York City, New York Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck, indicating that the key issue before the court in the discovery dispute between parties was whether (at the plaintiff’s request) the defendants can be forced to use technology assisted review, refused to force the defendant to do so, stating “The short answer is a decisive ‘NO.’”
read moreIn Waters v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Kansas Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale granted the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to produce account information associated with his social media accounts as well as postings from the dates he missed work in conjunction with his injury claims against the defendant. Judge Gale also granted most of the components of the plaintiff’s motion to compel against the defendant for various discovery requests.
read moreThe eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey is a non-scientific survey designed to provide insight into the business confidence level of individuals working in the eDiscovery ecosystem. The term ‘business’ represents the economic factors that impact the creation, delivery, and consumption of eDiscovery products and services. The purpose of the survey is to provide a subjective baseline for understanding the trajectory of the business of eDiscovery through the eyes of industry professionals.
read moreIf you missed our panel session last month in New York City at The Masters Conference, you missed 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. Now, you get another chance to check it out, thanks to ACEDS.
read moreWe’ve covered the growth of cloud adoption several times, especially in eDiscovery, including here and here. However, according to a new survey from Ponemon, organizations apparently aren’t adopting appropriate governance and security measures to protect sensitive data in the cloud.
read moreAs you all know, I love a good infographic. This one reflects the states that require attorneys to stay abreast of changes in technology relating to law practice. Does your state have a technology competence requirement for its attorneys?
read moreOne of the trends that most thought leaders that we interviewed in our annual thought leader interview series this year identified was that the eDiscovery provider market was finally consolidating and the pace of mergers and acquisitions was accelerating. So far this year, that trend is proving true.
read moreIn GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc., Delaware District Judge Leonard P. Stark, finding a high degree of fault, bad-faith intent to deprive the plaintiff of responsive documents and prejudice caused to the plaintiff’s case, imposed several sanctions against the defendant, including “punitive sanctions in the amount of $3,000,000” for the “intentional and admitted deletion of emails” by the defendant’s Senior Vice President of Sales.
read moreOK, I know that’s not how the classic Sister Sledge song goes, but I’m such an eDiscovery geek that every time I think of that song these days, I think of keeping email and attachment families together. One of the most common mistakes that I see clients make is that they forget to account for complete “families” in their email productions, which leads to an incomplete production to opposing counsel.
read moreIn United States v. Lambis, New York District Judge William H. Pauley, III granted the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained by law enforcement agents in connection with a search of his apartment because the apartment was located via the use of a “Stingray” cell-site simulator to identify the location of the defendant’s phone without a warrant.
read more|
On-Premise Processing and Review offer unique advantages that the cloud alone can’t replicate. Make an informed decision. |
