The Rule 26(f) “meet and confer” conference is a requirement in Federal cases as of the rules changes of 2006 to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It enables the parties in a lawsuit to discuss discovery and create a plan for the sharing of information during and before trial. But, what if you can’t agree on how discovery should be handled? Considering using an “eMediator”!
read moreSince the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) annual meeting just four short months ago in May, several EDRM projects (Metrics, Jobs, Data Set and the new Native Files project) have already announced new deliverables and/or requested feedback. Now, the Data Set project has announced another new deliverable – a new Privacy Risk Reduction Model.
read moreRemember when we raised the question as to whether it is time to ditch the per hour model for document review? One of the cases we highlighted for perceived overbilling was ruled upon last month. In the case In re Citigroup Inc. Securities Litigation, New York District Judge Sidney H. Stein rejected as unreasonable the plaintiffs’ lead counsel’s proffered blended rate of more than $400 for contract attorneys—more than the blended rate charged for associate attorneys—most of whom were tasked with routine document review work.
read moreWe’ve always been free, now we are three! It’s hard to believe that it has been three years ago today since we launched the eDiscoveryDaily blog. We’re past the “terrible twos” and heading towards pre-school. Before you know it, we’ll be ready to take our driver’s test! Here are some posts over the last six months you may have missed.
read moreIn American Home Assurance Co. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., Nebraska District Judge Lyle E. Strom ruled (among other things) that the defendants must disclose the sources it has searched (or intends to search) for electronically stored information (ESI) to the plaintiffs and, for each source, identify the search terms used.
read moreIn Logtale, Ltd. v. IKOR, Inc., California Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to discovery and awarded partial attorney’s fees as a result of defendants’ conduct. The judge did not grant the plaintiff’s request to order Defendants to retain an eDiscovery vendor to conduct a thorough and adequate search for responsive electronic documents, but did note that the court would do so “if there are continuing problems with their document productions”.
read moreThere are several decisions that the lead attorney has to make when a new case is filed. Decisions made early in the life cycle of a case can significantly affect how discovery is managed and how costly the discovery process can be for that case. Decision trees are a mechanism that can help attorneys plan for discovery by enabling them to make decisions up front that can lead to more efficient management of the discovery process.
read moreYesterday, we gave you a pop quiz for the topics we’ve covered in the past month. If you’re reading the blog each day, these questions should be easy! Let’s see how you did. Here are the answers.
read moreDid you think we forgot to quiz you about last month’s topics? Perish the thought! Like we did in July, here is a pop quiz for the topics we covered in August. If you’re reading the blog each day, these questions should be easy! If not, we’ve provided a link to the post with the answer. We’re that nice. Test your knowledge! Tomorrow, we’ll post the answers for those who don’t know and didn’t look them up.
read moreOne of the most influential organizations in eDiscovery is The Sedona Conference® (TSC), and some of TSC’s most recent contributions have been documented in this blog, including a commentary on proportionality (released in 2010), database principles (2011) and guidance for judges (2012). Last month, TSC’s Working Group on Electronic Document Retention & Production (WG1) released it’s Second Edition of The Sedona Conference® Commentary on Ethics & Metadata.
read more