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

George Socha of Socha Consulting LLC: eDiscovery Trends

Today’s thought leader is George Socha. A litigator for 16 years, George is President of Socha Consulting LLC, offering services as an electronic discovery expert witness, special master and advisor to corporations, law firms and their clients, and legal vertical market software and service providers in the areas of electronic discovery and automated litigation support. George has also been co-author of the leading survey on the electronic discovery market, The Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey; in 2011, he and Tom Gelbmann converted the Survey into Apersee, an online system for selecting eDiscovery providers and their offerings. In 2005, he and Tom Gelbmann launched the Electronic Discovery Reference Model project to establish standards within the eDiscovery industry – today, the EDRM model has become a standard in the industry for the eDiscovery life cycle and there are nine active projects with over 300 members from 81 participating organizations. George has a J.D. for Cornell Law School and a B.A. from the University of Wisconsin – Madison.

read more

Brad Jenkins of CloudNine: eDiscovery Trends

Today’s thought leader is Brad Jenkins of CloudNine™. Brad has over 20 years of experience as an entrepreneur, as well as 15 years leading customer focused companies in the litigation technology arena. Brad also has authored several articles on document management and litigation support issues, and has appeared as a speaker before national audiences on document management practices and solutions. He’s also my boss! :o)

read more

What Are the Biggest Challenges for Law Departments in 2016? This Report Has Some Answers: eDiscovery Trends

According to Consilio’s Law Department Benchmarking Report, a survey encompassing data from 119 company’s law departments ranging in revenue from 2 to 10 billion dollars which was released on Tuesday, over 50 percent of law departments find that increasing or changing regulatory requirements pose the biggest challenge in 2016. That, and other, findings can be found in the report, which is now available.

read more

Apple in Court Battle Over Access to San Bernardino Shooter’s iPhone: eDiscovery Trends

In a case that pits national security vs. privacy concerns, a federal judge on Tuesday ordered Apple to give investigators access to encrypted data on the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, a court order that Apple has vowed to fight, accusing the federal government of an “overreach” that could potentially breach the privacy of millions of customers.

read more

Dispute Over Adequacy of Defendant’s Production Leads to Court Ordered Meet and Confer: eDiscovery Case Law

In Gardner et. al. v. Continental Casualty Company, Connecticut Magistrate Judge Joan Glazer Margolis, granting the plaintiff’s motion to compel in part, ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding “’sampling and iterative confinement’ or ‘quick peek protocol’ of the 38,000 documents ‘hit’ by the agreed upon search terms and notify the court in writing “about their progress, or lack thereof, on or before February 12, 2016.”

read more

Announcing Sixth Annual LTNY Thought Leader Series!: eDiscovery Trends

The annual appearance of the dancing light bulb can only mean one thing – it’s time for another thought leader series! Over our nearly 5 1/2 years of our existence, eDiscovery Daily has published several thought leader interviews from various thought leaders throughout the eDiscovery community, including an annual series of interviews at LegalTech New York (LTNY). For the sixth(!) consecutive year, we’re pleased to introduce the schedule for this year’s series, which will begin next Monday, February 22.

read more

Alteration of Domain in Produced Emails Leads to Sanctions for Plaintiffs: eDiscovery Case Law

In CAT3, LLC v. Black Lineage, Inc., New York Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, ruling that emails produced by the plaintiffs were “intentionally altered”, ordered that the plaintiffs would be precluded from relying on “their version” of those emails to demonstrate their case and that the plaintiffs would bear the “costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by the defendants in establishing the plaintiffs’ misconduct and in securing relief.”

read more