Our Insights on eDiscovery

Today’s Webcast Will Teach You Key Case Law for 2019 and How it Affects 2020: eDiscovery Webcasts

January 29, 2020

2019 was another notable year for eDiscovery case law with several significant rulings that stand to impact eDiscovery practices, the admissibility of evidence and the potential of sanctions for discovery violations. How can these key case law decisions affect discovery within your organization? Today’s webcast that will discuss key case law rulings from last year and their impact on this year – and beyond.

Legaltech 2020 Preview Edition: eDiscovery Trends

January 28, 2020

As you can tell by the new snazzy custom CloudNine NYC logo, Legaltech® begins in exactly one week! Yes, I know that Legalweek® begins on Monday, but the heart of the week is the Legalweek conference. Hey, I remember when the “T” in Legaltech was capitalized! So, what’s happening this year? Let’s take a look.

Court Rules Defendant’s Production Need Not Be Lost in Translation: eDiscovery Case Law

January 27, 2020

In NY Machinery v. The Korean Cleaners Monthly, New Jersey Magistrate Judge Edward S. Kiel, noting that “Rule 34 does not address which party has the obligation to translate documents into English” denied the plaintiffs’ application seeking to compel the defendants to translate documents served as part of their document production.

A Different Type of Throwback Post, Along with ACEDS and Legaltech Updates: eDiscovery Best Practices

January 24, 2020

This isn’t your typical Throwback Thursday post. For starters, it isn’t Thursday, it’s Friday (yay!). And, it’s not so much of a throwback on a topic we’ve covered in the past, but rather a shout-out to a new article from an eDiscovery Daily alum! And, we have an update on an ACEDS Houston event from yesterday and reminders of some CloudNine events coming at Legaltech!

Plaintiffs’ Failure to “Hurry” Leads to Denial of Motion to Compel: eDiscovery Case Law

January 23, 2020

In Hurry Family Revocable Trust, et al. v. Frankel, the Florida District Court judge denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions, ruling the motion to be untimely, given that the extended discovery deadline had passed, and also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the defendant had willfully avoided producing certain emails.

NineForum is Back for Another Year at Legaltech!: eDiscovery Best Practices

January 22, 2020

It was such a success last year, we decided to do it again this year! At Legaltech, CloudNine will once again be conducting NineForum – our series of TED-style talk sessions right from our booth! And, we have another terrific group of eDiscovery thought leaders to present on great topics!

Here’s Another Updated Commentary from The Sedona Conference: eDiscovery Best Practices

January 21, 2020

Last Friday, we covered one updated commentary from The Sedona Conference® (TSC) and promised to cover another one this week. Consider our promise kept!

Here’s Why Whether Apple Provides a Backdoor to iPhones May Not Matter: Data Privacy Trends

January 20, 2020

Last week, we covered the government’s latest attempt (and Apple’s resistance) to get Apple to assist in unlocking the iPhones of a mass shooter – this time, with regard to password-protected iPhones used by Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, who is suspected of killing three people last month in a shooting at a Navy base in Pensacola, Florida. Ultimately, however, it may not matter whether Apple helps the government or not.

The Sedona Conference Has an Updated Commentary on Rule 45 Subpoenas to Non-Parties: eDiscovery Best Practices

January 17, 2020

So many stories, so little time. Been meaning to cover this for a few days now. Last week, The Sedona Conference® (TSC) and its Working Group 1 on Electronic Document Retention & Production (WG1) announced the publication of the Public Comment Version of The Sedona Conference Commentary on Rule 45 Subpoenas to Non-Parties, Second Edition.

Apple Battling with the Government Again Over Breaking iPhone Encryption of Mass Shooters: Data Privacy Trends

January 16, 2020

Remember back in 2016 when Apple with in a court battle with the Department of Justice over giving investigators access to encrypted data on the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters? That was back in 2016 and we covered the story on the blog back then – that situation was resolved when the DOJ indicated that the FBI was able to retrieve the data with help from an “unnamed third party”. Now, Apple is in a new dispute with the government again over the same issue.