Our Insights on eDiscovery

Read on to learn more about the latest trends and insights in the world of digital discovery.
Close
Enter your
text here
Court Orders Plaintiff to Perform a “Download Your Info” From Facebook: eDiscovery Case Law
 Court Orders Plaintiff to Perform a “Download Your Info” From Facebook: eDiscovery Case Law 150 150 CloudNine

In Rhone v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc., Missouri Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins ordered the plaintiff to disclose a complete list of her social media accounts to the defendant and also provide a “Download Your Info” report from her Facebook account from June 2, 2014 to the present within fourteen days and ordered the defendant to disclose to the plaintiff any and all posts, photos or other media from the report it intends to use in support of its defense.

read more
Former IT Administrator with “Keys to the Kingdom” Charged with Hacking into Former Employer: eDiscovery Trends
 Former IT Administrator with “Keys to the Kingdom” Charged with Hacking into Former Employer: eDiscovery Trends 150 150 CloudNine

A former IT administrator pled not guilty earlier this month to federal charges of hacking into the computer system of Blue Stone Strategy Group – an Irvine-based company and the man’s former employer – and deleting files.

read more
The Number of Files in Each Gigabyte Can Vary Widely: eDiscovery Best Practices
 The Number of Files in Each Gigabyte Can Vary Widely: eDiscovery Best Practices 150 150 CloudNine

Now and then, I am asked by clients how many documents (files) are typically contained in one gigabyte (GB) of data. When trying to estimate the costs for review, having a good estimate of the number of files is important to provide a good estimate for review costs. However, because the number of files per GB can vary widely, estimating review costs accurately can be a challenge.

read more
Plaintiffs Ordered to Produce a Copy of Access Database for Forensic Analysis: eDiscovery Case Law
 Plaintiffs Ordered to Produce a Copy of Access Database for Forensic Analysis: eDiscovery Case Law 150 150 CloudNine

In Thorne Research, Inc. et. al. v. Atlantic Pro-Nutrients, Inc., Utah Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner determined that, because the parties had competing affidavits regarding whether a Microsoft Access database created by the plaintiffs’ co-inventor stores metadata and that metadata (if present) was clearly relevant, the defendant should be allowed the opportunity to conduct a forensic analysis as to whether or not the metadata exists in the native format of the Access database.

read more
BakerHostetler’s New “Attorney” Doesn’t Carry a Briefcase: eDiscovery Trends
 BakerHostetler’s New “Attorney” Doesn’t Carry a Briefcase: eDiscovery Trends 150 150 CloudNine

BakerHostetler has brought a new “attorney” into the fold named ROSS (not like “Ross” from the old TV show Friends, but “ROSS”). They call ROSS “artificially intelligent”, which doesn’t sound like a very nice thing to say, but it’s entirely accurate.

read more
“Master” Your Knowledge of eDiscovery With This Conference in Chicago Later This Month: eDiscovery Trends
 “Master” Your Knowledge of eDiscovery With This Conference in Chicago Later This Month: eDiscovery Trends 150 150 CloudNine

If you’re in the Chicago area or plan to be there on May 24, join me and other legal technology experts and professionals at The Masters Conference Windy City Cybersecurity, Social Media and eDiscovery event for a full day of educational sessions covering a wide range of topics!

read more
Court Orders Defendant to Re-Produce Selected Documents in Native Format: eDiscovery Case Law
 Court Orders Defendant to Re-Produce Selected Documents in Native Format: eDiscovery Case Law 150 150 CloudNine

In Spring v. Board of Trustees of Cape Fear Community College et. al., North Carolina Magistrate Judge James E. Gates, in ruling on several discovery disputes between the parties, granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel in part, ordering the plaintiff to identify documents to be re-produced in native format and for the defendant to re-produce those documents or move for appropriate relief after conferring with plaintiff if it deemed the number of documents identified to be unjustifiably large.

read more
Time to Express Your Confidence Level in the eDiscovery Ecosystem (Again): eDiscovery Trends
 Time to Express Your Confidence Level in the eDiscovery Ecosystem (Again): eDiscovery Trends 150 150 CloudNine

After his inaugural eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey yielded some interesting results, Rob Robinson has made good on his plan to conduct the survey quarterly on his terrific Complex Discovery site with the Spring 2016 Survey. Now is your chance to express your confidence in the eDiscovery ecosystem!

read more
At Litigation Time, the Cost of Data Storage May Not Be As Low As You Think: eDiscovery Best Practices
 At Litigation Time, the Cost of Data Storage May Not Be As Low As You Think: eDiscovery Best Practices 150 150 CloudNine

One of my favorite all-time graphics that we’ve posted on the blog (from one of our very first posts) is this ad from the early 1980s for a 10 MB disk drive – for $3,398! That’s MB (megabytes), not GB (gigabytes) or TB (terabytes). These days, the cost per GB for data storage is pennies on the dollar, which is a big reason why the total amount of data being captured and stored by industry doubles every 1.2 years. But, at litigation time, all that data can cost you – big.

read more
Merely Stating That ESI Request Is Not Relevant Or Proportional Is Not Sufficient, Court Rules: eDiscovery Case Law
 Merely Stating That ESI Request Is Not Relevant Or Proportional Is Not Sufficient, Court Rules: eDiscovery Case Law 150 150 CloudNine

In Digital Ally, Inc. v. Utility Associates, Inc., Kansas Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, overruling the defendant’s objections that the request was neither relevant nor proportional to the issues in this case, because the defendant “has not expounded on its objections to relevance or proportionality under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)”.

read more