Our Insights on eDiscovery

Split Decision between Plaintiff and Defendant Regarding Search Terms – eDiscovery Case Law

January 14, 2014

In Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Giannoulias, Illinois District Judge John F. Grady resolved several motions regarding discovery proceedings in a $114 million lawsuit. Two of the motions concerned search terms for documents and electronically stored information (ESI), in which the plaintiff opposed the defendants’ request for six additional terms to be included in retrieving discovery documents. The court ruled that four additional search terms would be added, while two would be excluded.

Six eDiscovery Predictions for 2014, Part Two – eDiscovery Trends

January 13, 2014

It’s that time of year, where people make predictions for the coming year for all sorts of things, including electronic discovery trends for the coming year. Friday, we covered my first three eDiscovery predictions for 2014. Here are the remaining three predictions.

Six eDiscovery Predictions for 2014, Part One – eDiscovery Trends

January 10, 2014

It’s that time of year, where people make predictions for the coming year for all sorts of things, including electronic discovery trends for the coming year. Though I have to say, I’ve seen fewer predictions this year than in past years. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to offer some of my own predictions. If they turn out right, you heard it here first!

EDRM UTBMS eDiscovery Code Set Calculator – eDiscovery Best Practices

January 9, 2014

Last month, we discussed budget calculators available from the Metrics section of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) web site. So far, we have reviewed two of the budget calculators, beginning with the E-Discovery Cost Estimator for Processing and Review workbook provided by Julie Brown at Vorys law firm and the Doc Review Cost Calculator provided by an eDiscovery vendor. Today, we will continue our review of the calculators with a look at the EDRM UTBMS eDiscovery Code Set Calculator provided by Browning Marean, DLA Piper law firm; and George Socha, Socha Consulting (and, of course, co-founder of EDRM).

Want to Avoid Unexpected Issues in Your eDiscovery Project? Conduct a "Pre-Mortem" – eDiscovery Best Practices

January 7, 2014

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result”. To avoid that issue, experienced project managers know the value of conducting a “post-mortem” to discuss any problems encountered during the project and how to avoid repeating them in the future. But, what if you could prevent them from happening in the first place?

Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Fee Request Slashed because they “Transformed what should Have Been a Simple Case into a Discovery Nightmare” – eDiscovery Case Law

January 6, 2014

In Fair Housing Center of Southwest Michigan v. Hunt, Michigan Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville ruled that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties in its settlement agreement with the defendants and were entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, but slashed the plaintiff’s fee request, “both because the hours devoted to this case were excessive and because the fee request makes no effort to account for the limited success that plaintiffs achieved in this case”.

Cost Calculator for Document Review – eDiscovery Best Practices

January 3, 2014

A couple of weeks ago, we discussed budget calculators available from the Metrics section of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) web site and, two days later, began a review of the budget calculators, beginning with the E-Discovery Cost Estimator for Processing and Review workbook provided by Julie Brown at Vorys law firm. Today, we will continue our review of the calculators with a look at the Doc Review Cost Calculator.

Plaintiff Sanctioned After its "Failure to Take the Most Basic Document Preservation Steps" – eDiscovery Case Law

January 2, 2014

In SJS Distribution Systems, Inc. v. Sam’s East, Inc., New York Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy found the plaintiff’s failure to take “the most basic document preservation steps,” including issuing a litigation hold – “even after it discovered the packaging nonconformities and filed this action” – constituted gross negligence. As a result, an adverse inference instruction sanction was issued against the plaintiff and the defendant was awarded its costs and attorney’s fees associated with its motion to compel.

Company Should Have Preserved Personal eMails, But No Sanctions (Yet) – eDiscovery Case Law

December 23, 2013

In Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. San Juan Cable LLC, Puerto Rico Magistrate Judge Bruce J. McGiverin found that “plaintiff has proffered sufficient evidence to establish that [the defendant] OneLink failed to preserve relevant emails within its control”, but denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions at this time because of the “absence of bad faith” on the defendant’s part and the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate prejudice.

Court Orders Plaintiff to Perform Some Requested Searches Despite the Plaintiff’s Claim that they’re “Unprecedented” – eDiscovery Case Law

December 20, 2013

In Swanson v. ALZA Corp., California Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s request to compel the plaintiff to apply its search terms to his ESI, ordering some of the search terms to be performed, despite the plaintiff’s assertion that the “the application of Boolean searches was unprecedented”.