Once again, ABA Journal is working on their annual list of the 100 best legal blogs, and they would like your advice on which blogs you think they should include. If you have a favorite law blog (or “blawg”, get it?), now is the time to nominate it for recognition in the ABA Journal Annual Blawg 100.
read moreLast week, we covered the Burd v. Ford Motor Co. case where the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a deposition of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on the defendant’s search and collection methodology involving self-collection of responsive documents by custodians based on search instructions provided by counsel. In light of that case and a recent client experience of mine, I thought it would be appropriate to revisit this topic that we addressed a couple of years ago.
read moreWhether they should or not, maybe they can – if they’re found NOT to be practicing law, according to a ruling from the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
read moreIn Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A., New York Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck, at the request of the defendant, entered an Order appointing Maura Grossman as a special master in this case to assist with issues concerning Technology-Assisted Review (TAR).
read moreWhen EDRM announced eDiscovery Daily as an Education partner back in March, EDRM agreed to publish our daily posts on the EDRM site and it has been great to publish our content via the leading standards organization for the eDiscovery market! However, another part of our agreement was for eDiscovery Daily to provide exclusive content to EDRM, including articles sharing real-life examples of organizations using EDRM resources in their own eDiscovery workflows. Now, our first participant profile is available on the EDRM site and we’re looking for other organizations to share their EDRM experiences!
read moreIn Burd v. Ford Motor Co., West Virginia Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert granted the plaintiff’s motion for a deposition of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on the defendant’s search and collection methodology, but did not rule on the issue of whether the defendant had a reasonable collection process or adequate production, denying the plaintiff’s motion as “premature” on that request.
read moreOne of the most discussed topics at LegalTech® New York 2015 (LTNY) earlier this year was cybersecurity. We’ve started covering some of the trends related to security breaches with posts here, here and here and even my hometown baseball team, the Houston Astros, was recently hacked by a competitor. The latest victims of cyber hacking – the purported 37 million subscribers of the online cheating site AshleyMadison.com – may find little sympathy in their plight.
read moreIn Giuliani v. Springfield Township, et al., Pennsylvania District Judge Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr. denied the plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions, finding that the duty to preserve began when the case was filed and finding that “plaintiffs have not shown that defendants had any ill motive or bad intent in failing to retain the documents which plaintiffs seek”.
read moreFriday, we wrote about tracking file counts from collection to production, the concept of expanded file counts, and the categorization of files during processing. Today, let’s walk through a scenario to show how the files collected are accounted for during the discovery process.
read moreA while back, we wrote about Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) in the eDiscovery process. Both are important in improving the quality of work product and making the eDiscovery process more defensible overall. With regard to QC, an overall QC mechanism is tracking of document counts through the discovery process, especially from collection to production, to identify how every collected file was handled and why each non-produced document was not produced.
read more