Our Insights on eDiscovery

Read on to learn more about the latest trends and insights in the world of digital discovery.

Close
Enter your
text here

Problems with Review? It’s Not the End of the World – eDiscovery Best Practices

If 2012 will be remembered for anything from an eDiscovery standpoint, it will be remembered for the arrival of Technology Assisted Review (TAR), aka Computer Assisted Review (CAR), as a court accepted method for conducting eDiscovery review. Many associate TAR with predictive coding, but that’s not the only form of TAR to assist with review. How the documents are organized for review can make a big difference in the efficiency of review, not only saving costs, but also improving accuracy by assigning similar documents to the same reviewer.

read more

Class Action Plaintiffs Required to Provide Social Media Passwords and Cell Phones – eDiscovery Case Law

Considering proportionality and accessibility concerns in EEOC v. Original Honeybaked Ham Co. of Georgia, Colorado Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty held that where a party had showed certain of its adversaries’ social media content and text messages were relevant, the adversaries must produce usernames and passwords for their social media accounts, usernames and passwords for e-mail accounts and blogs, and cell phones used to send or receive text messages to be examined by a forensic expert as a special master in camera.

read more

Baby, You Can Drive My CARRM – eDiscovery Trends

There have been a number of terms applied to using technology to aid in eDiscovery review, including technology assisted review (often referred to by its acronym “TAR”) and predictive coding. Another term is Computer Assisted Review (which lends itself to the obvious acronym of “CAR”).
Now, the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) is looking to provide an “owner’s manual” to that CAR with its new draft Computer Assisted Review Reference Model (CARRM), which depicts the flow for a successful CAR project.

read more

How Are You Handling Defensible Deletion? – eDiscovery Best Practices

According to the Compliance, Governance and Oversight Council (CGOC), information volume doubles every 18-24 months and 90% of the data in the world has been created in the last two years. So, many organizations are drowning in electronically stored information (ESI) and costs associated with managing that ESI for eDiscovery are continuing to rise. An effective plan for information governance that includes defensible deletion of ESI is an effective way of keeping that ESI from overwhelming your organization. But, what percentage of organizations is defensibly deleting data? A new survey from eDJGroup is attempting to find out.

read more

“Rap Weasel” Forced to Honor $1 Million Reward Offered via YouTube – eDiscovery Case Law

It isn’t every day that eDiscoveryDaily has reason to reference The Hollywood Reporter in a story about eDiscovery case law, but even celebrities have eDiscovery preservation obligations during litigation. In Augstein v. Leslie, New York District Judge Harold Baer imposed an adverse inference sanction against hip hop and R&B artist Ryan Leslie for “negligent destruction” of a hard drive returned to him by the plaintiff after a $1 million reward was offered via YouTube. On November 28, a jury ordered him to pay the $1 million reward to the plaintiff.

read more

More Self-Documentation Features for Review Solutions – eDiscovery Best Practices

As we discussed yesterday, one feature of review solutions that often gets overlooked is the ability for the review solution to automatically document searching and review activities. Not only does that make it easier to identify potential issues in the process; it also facilitates the ability for attorneys to demonstrate a defensible approach to discovery to the court. Let’s discuss two other areas where self-documentation can assist in the discovery analysis and review process.

read more

When Considering Review Solutions, Don’t Forget About Self-Documentation – eDiscovery Best Practices

When evaluating eDiscovery review solutions, there are a number of features that attorneys consider as part of their selection process. For example: What searching capabilities does the solution have? How does it handle native files? How does it support annotations and redactions of images? Can it support conceptual clustering and predictive coding? But, one feature that often gets overlooked is the ability for the review solution to automatically document searching and review activities. Not only does that make it easier to identify potential issues in the process; it also facilitates the ability for attorneys to demonstrate a defensible approach to discovery to the court.

read more