Our Insights on eDiscovery

Several people have asked me where I get ideas for topics to create a daily blog post on eDiscovery Daily. There are several great resources out there – including law technology sites, compilation sites and other blogs – and I’ve mentioned many of them over the years and referenced their articles and posts in this blog. But, there is another source – from a huge, well known company – that I scan daily to keep abreast of developments in the industry (and for good blog topic ideas). Find out more here.

If you are an email subscriber to the blog (thanks for subscribing, by the way!), you may have noticed an anomaly in your Inbox this morning – two eDiscovery Daily emails. So, why did this happen? Here’s why.

In 2012, the Compliance, Governance and Oversight Council (CGOC) released survey results indicating that nearly 70 percent of organizational information has no legal or business value and that, for most organizations, information volume doubles every 18-24 months. Now, EDRM, in collaboration with the CGOC, has released a new white paper to address growing concerns related to the amount and substance of electronic data currently created and stored.

Unless limited by law or court order, a lawyer may review a juror’s or potential juror’s Internet presence, which may include postings by the juror or potential juror in advance of and during a trial, but a lawyer may not communicate directly or through another with a juror or potential juror. So says a new formal opinion from the American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on Ethics and Professionalism.

Last month, we discussed significant changes made to Rule 37(e), which had been hotly debated and was the source of many of the 2,354 public comments filed regarding the recent proposed rules changes. Earlier this month (on April 10th and 11th), the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules met to review proposed amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, including recommended changes to those proposed amendments as published for public comment and further changes were made to Rule 37(e).

If you’ve tried to access the blog for the past couple of days, you’ve experienced a lot of difficulty and, for parts of Monday and Tuesday, got an indication that the URL didn’t exist. Here’s why.

If a new proposed opinion in California is adopted, attorneys in that state had better be sufficiently skilled in eDiscovery, hire technical consultants or competent counsel that is sufficiently skilled, or decline representation in cases where eDiscovery is required.