The Radicati Group, Inc. has just released its latest study, eDiscovery Market, 2013-2017, that offers an in-depth analysis of the worldwide market for eDiscovery software solutions. According to their study, the market for eDiscovery solutions will grow quite a bit over the next four years!
read moreTo require a party to produce evidence in discovery, the party must have “possession, custody, or control” of the evidence. In Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas v. Nemaha Brown Watershed Joint District No. 7, the defendant did not have control over the personal computers of its former members, employees, or staff; it did not have the legal right to obtain information from them “on demand.” Therefore, the court rejected the plaintiff’s motion to compel and refused to order the forensic examination of the personal computers of current or former members, employees, or staff.
read moreYesterday, we discussed the opening of a congressional hearing opened with at least one senator voicing concerns about whether the proposed changes to the Federal rules (drafted and approved for public comment) would be effective at curbing the skyrocketing costs of discovery. Based on a couple of questions that I received about his comments, I located the Opening Statement for the hearing in question and thought it would be of interest.
read moreAs reported by Todd Luger in Law Technology News (Discovery Rules Changes Greeted With Skepticism in Senate), a congressional hearing opened with at least one senator voicing concerns about whether the changes would be effective at curbing the skyrocketing costs of discovery.
read moreOn the day this blog debuted, we covered one of the most well-known cases related to discovery abuses (Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc.), where Maryland District Judge Paul W. Grimm included in his order a provision that the defendant actually be “imprisoned for a period not to exceed two years” if he didn’t pay the plaintiff the attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded. Now, Judge Grimm provides a new Discovery Order that sets requirements for attorneys in his court to conduct discovery in a proportional manner.
read moreYesterday, we gave you a pop quiz for the topics we’ve covered in September and October. If you’re reading the blog each day, these questions should be easy! Let’s see how you did. Here are the answers.
read moreWe neglected to give you a pop quiz last month? Oops! Like we did for July and August, here is a pop quiz for the topics we covered in September and October. If you’re reading the blog each day, these questions should be easy, but, yes, we still provide a link to the post with the answer if you need it. Test your knowledge! Tomorrow, we’ll post the answers for those who don’t know and didn’t look them up.
read moreOn the heels of announcing a transition to nonprofit status by May 2014, the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) has now introduced Collection Standards for electronically stored information (ESI) for public comment.
read moreToday is Halloween. Every year at this time, because (after all) we’re an eDiscovery blog, we try to “scare” you with tales of eDiscovery horrors. So, I have one question: Are you scared yet?
read moreAs we discussed back in July, attorneys representing lead plaintiff Monique Da Silva Moore and five other employees filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court arguing that New York Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck, who approved an eDiscovery protocol agreed to by the parties that included predictive coding technology, should have recused himself given his previous public statements expressing strong support of predictive coding. Earlier this month, on October 7, that petition was denied by the Supreme Court.
read more