Our Insights on eDiscovery

Twitter Sues for the Right to be More Transparent – Social Tech eDiscovery

October 10, 2014

Back in July, we took a look at Twitter’s Transparency Report to show government requests for data over the last six months of 2013 (we had previously looked at their very first report here). However, because Twitter is barred by law from disclosing certain details on government surveillance requests, the Transparency Report is not as transparent as Twitter would like. So, on Tuesday, Twitter filed suit against the FBI and the Justice Department, seeking the ability to release more detailed information on government surveillance of Twitter users.

eDiscovery Throwback Thursdays – How things evolved, part 3

October 9, 2014

So far in this blog series, we’ve taken a look at the ‘litigation support culture’ circa 1980, and we’ve covered how databases were built and used. In the past couple of weeks we’ve talked about the form in which document collections were stored and the evolution – first in paper form, then on microfilm, then microfiche, and then as digital images. Database content has evolved too. Let’s discuss.

Survey of Corporate Counsel Finds that there is Much Room for Improvement in Handling eDiscovery – eDiscovery Trends

October 8, 2014

Yesterday, we discussed a new self-assessment test that enables organizations to measure their eDiscovery “maturity”. Today, we look at a new survey of corporate counsel from BDO Consulting that shows that they feel there is substantial room for improvement when evaluating their organizations’ effectiveness in managing eDiscovery.

How Mature is Your Organization in Handling eDiscovery? – eDiscovery Best Practices

October 7, 2014

A new self-assessment resource from EDRM helps you answer that question. A few days ago, EDRM announced the release of the EDRM eDiscovery Maturity Self-Assessment Test (eMSAT-1), the “first self-assessment resource to help organizations measure their eDiscovery maturity”. Find out more about it here.

Court Approves Use of Predictive Coding, Disagrees that it is an “Unproven Technology” – eDiscovery Case Law

October 6, 2014

In Dynamo Holdings v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Texas Tax Court Judge Ronald Buch ruled that the petitioners “may use predictive coding in responding to respondent’s discovery request” and if “after reviewing the results, respondent believes that the response to the discovery request is incomplete, he may file a motion to compel at that time”.

Good Processing Requires a Sound Process – Best of eDiscovery Daily

October 3, 2014

As we discussed Wednesday, working with electronic files in a review tool is NOT just simply a matter of loading the files and getting started. Electronic files are diverse and can represent a whole collection of issues to address in order to process them for loading. To address those issues effectively, processing requires a sound process.

eDiscovery Blog Throwback Thursdays – How things evolved, Part 2

October 2, 2014

So far in this blog series, we’ve taken a look at the ‘litigation support culture’ circa 1980, and we’ve covered how databases were built and used. We’ve come a long way since then, and in last week’s blog, we started discussing how things have evolved, beginning with a discussion of the use of microfilm and microfiche to store document collections. As most of you know, the next step in the evolution process was a move to storing documents as images.

The Files are Already Electronic, How Hard Can They Be to Load? – Best of eDiscovery Daily

October 1, 2014

Since hard copy discovery became electronic discovery, I’ve worked with a number of clients who expect that working with electronic files in a review tool is simply a matter of loading the files and getting started. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple!

When Preparing Production Sets, Quality is Job 1 – Best of eDiscovery Daily

September 30, 2014

Yesterday, we talked about addressing parameters of production up front to ensure that those requirements make sense and avoid foreseeable production problems well before the production step. Today, we will talk about quality control (QC) mechanisms to make sure that the production is complete and accurate. There are a number of checks that can and should be performed on the production set, prior to producing it to the requesting party. Here are some examples.

Production is the “Ringo” of the eDiscovery Phases – Best of eDiscovery Daily

September 29, 2014

Most of the “press” associated with eDiscovery ranges from the “left side of the EDRM model” (i.e., Information Management, Identification, Preservation, Collection) through the stages to prepare materials for production (i.e., Processing, Review and Analysis). All of those phases lead to one inevitable stage in eDiscovery: Production. Yet, few people talk about the actual production step. If Preservation, Collection and Review are the “John”, “Paul” and “George” of the eDiscovery process, Production is “Ringo”.