When people ask me how long I’ve been working in the litigation support/eDiscovery industry, I generally tell them “25+ years” (after 25, I just stopped counting). But, there is someone who has been a litigation support professional for over 40(!) years, who recently received a well-deserved recognition for her work over the years. Her name is Robin Athlyn Thompson.
read moreAll three of these eDiscovery providers have been acquired within the last 2 1/2 months. Evolve Discovery? Ditto. Believe it or not, there have been a whopping 35 mergers, acquisitions and investments in the eDiscovery industry so far this year! That’s busy!
read moreIn Whitesell Corporation v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. et. al., Georgia District Judge J. Randal Hall denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against the defendant for identifying a deponent that (according to the plaintiff) had no particularized information regarding the defendant’s efforts to produce documents, stating that he was “unimpressed” by the plaintiff’s effort to confer on the matter and stating that the “duty-to-confer is not an empty formality”.
read moreIf you don’t, you should. When litigation is anticipated, it’s never too early to begin collecting potentially responsive data and assessing it by performing searches and testing the results. However, if you wait until after the meet and confer with opposing counsel, it can be too late. Let’s look at an example.
read moreIn Prezio Health, Inc. v. Schenk, et. al., after “a careful in camera review” of emails responsive to eighteen keyword search terms, Connecticut Magistrate Judge Joan Glazer Margolis ordered the defendant to produce metadata for eight specific emails which had already been produced to the plaintiff.
read moreHere are your ICYMI (In Case You Missed It) weekly summaries of the posts for this week (with links to the full post on our blog site) for you to check out.
read moreIn Cicon v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., Pennsylvania District Judge Richard P. Conaboy denied the plaintiff’s request for the defendant to produce attorney-client communications that occurred before the filing of the complaint, but granted his request regarding communications between non-attorney employees before the plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter threatening litigation, ordering the defendant to produce those emails, while allowing the defendant to redact explicit discussion of an attorney’s advice.
read moreInternational eDiscovery just became more difficult. A 27-year-old Austrian law graduate may have brought an end to a 15 year old agreement enabling transatlantic data transfers between the U.S. and European Union because of – wait for it – privacy concerns.
read moreA couple of weeks ago, we revisited the Apple v. Samsung case, which we covered so much last year, it had its own category in our annual case law review. On September 18, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh granted Apple’s motion for partial final judgment in the case that Apple lodged against Samsung in 2011, seemingly clearing the way for Apple to collect $548 million in damages from Samsung. But, on Friday, Samsung received an emergency stay on that order.
read moreAround this time of year, EDRM members (like me) expect to convene for our semi-annual visit to St. Paul for the mid-year meeting. This year, EDRM has a twist on the mid-year meeting, which they’re now calling the “fall workshop”. There’s also a webinar today!
read more|
On-Premise Processing and Review offer unique advantages that the cloud alone can’t replicate. Make an informed decision. |
