Our Insights on eDiscovery

Court Rules to Limit Scope of Discovery, Noting that “Searching for ESI is only one discovery tool” – eDiscovery Case Law

September 15, 2014

In United States v. Univ. of Neb. at Kearney, Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart denied the government’s motion to compel discovery, finding that “ESI is neither the only nor the best and most economical discovery method for obtaining the information the government seeks” and stating that searching for ESI “should not be deemed a replacement for interrogatories, production requests, requests for admissions and depositions”.

New Survey Shows eDiscovery Workload, Predictive Coding Use Increasing – eDiscovery Trends

September 12, 2014

eDiscovery workload, the use of predictive coding and projected rate of adoption of technically assisted review are all up significantly, according to a new report by recruiting and staffing firm The Cowen Group.

eDiscovery Throwback Thursdays – How Databases Were Used, Circa Early 1980s, Part 4

September 11, 2014

So far in this blog series, we’ve taken a look at the ‘litigation support culture’ in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, and we’ve covered how a database was built. We’re going to move on to discuss how those databases were used. The picture above is of a Texas Instruments Silent 700 terminal – which was the standard for use by litigators. This photo was taken at the Texas State Historical Museum.

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Fallback Request for Meet and Confer after Quashing its Subpoena – eDiscovery Case Law

September 10, 2014

In Boston Scientific Corporation v. Lee, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal found time to preside over a case other than Apple v. Samsung and granted the motion to quash the plaintiff’s subpoena for the defendant’s laptops, refusing the plaintiff’s fallback position to meet and confer and referencing Leave it to Beaver in the process.

How Much Will it Cost? – eDiscovery Best Practices

September 9, 2014

By far, the most important (and, therefore, the most asked) question asked of eDiscovery providers is “How much will it cost?”. Actually, you should be asking a few questions to get that answer – if they are the right questions, you can actually get the answer you seek.

Though it was “Switching Horses in Midstream”, Court Approves Plaintiff’s Predictive Coding Plan – eDiscovery Case Law

September 8, 2014

In Bridgestone Americas Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., Tennessee Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown, acknowledging that he was “allowing Plaintiff to switch horses in midstream”, nonetheless ruled that that the plaintiff could use predictive coding to search documents for discovery, even though keyword search had already been performed.

An Insufficient Password Will Leave You Exposed – eDiscovery Best Practices

September 5, 2014

As a cloud software provider, we at CloudNine Discovery place a premium on the security of our clients’ data. However, no matter how secure a system is, whether it’s local to your office or stored in the “cloud”, an insufficient password that can be easily guessed can allow hackers to get in and steal your data.

eDiscovery Throwback Thursdays – How Databases Were Built, Circa Early 1980s, Part 3

September 4, 2014

In the last couple of Throwback Thursday posts we covered the first stages in a database-building project (circa 1980), including designing and planning a database, preparing for a project, establishing an archive, coding and qc, and production status record keeping. The next steps are described here.

Our 1,000th Post! – eDiscovery Milestones

September 3, 2014

When we launched nearly four years ago on September 20, 2010, our goal was to be a daily resource for eDiscovery news and analysis. Now, after doing so each business day, I’m happy to announce that today is our 1,000th post on eDiscovery Daily! Check out what we’ve covered over 1,000 posts!

Court Refuses to Ban Samsung from Selling Products Found to Have Infringed on Apple Products – eDiscovery Case Law

September 2, 2014

Apple may have won several battles with Samsung, including ultimately being awarded over $1 billion in verdicts, as well as a $2 million sanction for the inadvertent disclosure of its outside counsel firm (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) commonly known as “patentgate”. But, Samsung has may have won the war with the court’s refusal to ban Samsung from selling products that were found to have infringed on Apple products.