Back in May, I was excited and honored to moderate an enjoyable panel session in Chicago at The Masters Conference event there. However, if you aren’t located in the Chicago area (or didn’t travel there for the event) you may have missed it. Now, if you’re going to be in the New York area on July 11, you get another chance to attend!
read moreIn Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theatres, Inc. et. al., the Court of Appeals of California, Second District determined that the trial court “abused its discretion” by “granting terminating sanctions in a case in which the prejudice to the non-offending party can be ameliorated by a more limited remedy”. As a result, the appeals court reversed the judgment and remanded it back to the trial court with a lesser sanction, prohibiting the plaintiff “from offering evidence of acts, events, or communications occurring during the period” when one of the plaintiffs deleted emails.
read moreMost of us love the idea of big data analytics and how it can ultimately benefit us, not just in the litigation process, but in business and life overall. But, there may be one group of people who may not be as big a fan of big data analytics as the rest of us: criminals who are being sentenced at least partly on the basis of predictive data analysis regarding the likelihood that they will be a repeat offender.
read moreIn Matthew Enterprise, Inc. v. Chrysler Group, LLC, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal, in one of his last orders before leaving the bench, determined that there was “no question that spoliation has occurred” and granted the defendant’s motion for sanctions for spoliation, “in its entirety, except for the proposed remedy”, opting for a middle ground between the parties’ proposals on what the remedy should be.
read moreWith the acceptance of predictive coding and other technology assisted review mechanisms growing over the past few years, some feel that keyword search is no longer important as a “key” (pun intended) component of the eDiscovery process. In a new article published last week, I discussed why search is so important in eDiscovery and why law firms and e-discovery companies need better search solutions.
read moreIn Family Wireless #1, LLC et. al. v. Automotive Technologies, Inc., Connecticut Magistrate Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam partially granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant to search and produce ESI from additional custodians, finding that “three of the six proposed custodians’ files are likely to include information relevant to this matter, and defendant has not met its burden of showing that inclusion of these three individuals would be unduly burdensome”.
read moreIn Al-Ameri et. al. v. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Maryland Magistrate Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher denied the defendant’s motion to compel on the basis that compelling the discovery sought would be futile.
read moreRemember when we raised the question as to whether it is time to ditch the per hour model for document review? One of the cases we highlighted for perceived overbilling was ruled upon here.
read moreI have to be honest, this blog post contains quite a bit of content from one of the early posts from this blog. However, there is something different about this version of the content – it looks a bit unusual. Can you figure out how I wrote it? See if you can figure it out before you get to the bottom. I promise I haven’t lost my mind.
read moreAccording to the Compliance, Governance and Oversight Council (CGOC), information volume in most organizations doubles every 18-24 months (now, it’s more like every 1.2 years). However, just because it doubles doesn’t mean that it’s all original. Like a bad cover band singing Free Bird, the rendition may be unique, but the content is the same. The key is limiting review to unique content.
read more|
On-Premise Processing and Review offer unique advantages that the cloud alone can’t replicate. Make an informed decision. |
