As we noted back in November, a mistake made by Google during discovery in its lawsuit with Oracle could cost the company dearly, perhaps billions. Despite the use of search technology to cull down a typically large ESI population, a key email was produced that could prove damaging to their case. The latest court ruling denies Google’s attempts to exclude the email at trial.
read moreToday’s thought leader is Jim McGann. Jim is Vice President of Information Discovery at Index Engines. Jim has extensive experience with the eDiscovery and Information Management in the Fortune 2000 sector. He has worked for leading software firms, including Information Builders and the French-based engineering software provider Dassault Systemes. In recent years he has worked for technology-based start-ups that provide financial services and information management solutions.
read moreToday’s thought leader is Christine Musil. Christine has a diverse career in engineering and marketing spanning 18 years. Christine has been with IGC since March 1996, when she started as a technical writer and a quality assurance engineer. After moving to marketing in 2001, she has applied her in-depth knowledge of IGC’s products and benefits to marketing initiatives, including branding, overall messaging, and public relations. She has also been a contributing author to a number of publications on archiving formats, redaction, and viewing technology in the enterprise.
read moreIn Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the parties to adopt a protocol for e-discovery that includes the use of predictive coding, perhaps the first known case where a technology assisted review approach was adopted by the court.
read moreToday’s thought leader is George Socha. A litigator for 16 years, George is President of Socha Consulting LLC, offering services as an electronic discovery expert witness, special master and advisor to corporations, law firms and their clients, and legal vertical market software and service providers in the areas of electronic discovery and automated litigation support. George is also co-author of Apersee, an online system for selecting eDiscovery providers and their offerings and co-founder of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) project to establish standards within the eDiscovery industry. George has a J.D. for Cornell Law School and a B.A. from the University of Wisconsin – Madison.
read moreAs noted in our blog post entitled 2012 Predictions – By The Numbers, almost all of the sets of eDiscovery predictions we reviewed (9 out of 10) predicted a greater emphasis on Technology Assisted Review (TAR) in the coming year. It was one of our predictions, as well. And, during all three days at LegalTech New York (LTNY) a couple of weeks ago, sessions were conducted that addressed technology assisted review concepts and best practices. However, key to the success of any review effort, whether linear or technology assisted, is knowledge of the subject matter.
read moreAs eDiscovery costs continue to escalate, proposals to bring proportionality to the eDiscovery process have become increasingly popular, such as the model order to limit eDiscovery in patent cases proposed by Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall Rader last year. In January, Chief Judge Rader and three members of the Council (Council Chairman Ed Reines of Weil, Tina Chappell of Intel Corporation, and John Whealan, Associate Dean of Intellectual Property Studies at the George Washington University School of Law) presented a proposal to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) to streamline eDiscovery in section 337 investigations.
read moreIn Custom Hardware Eng’g & Consulting v. Dowell, the plaintiff and defendant could not agree on search terms to be used for discovery on defendant’s forensically imaged computers. After reviewing proposed search terms from both sides, and the defendant’s objections to the plaintiff’s proposed list, the court ruled that the defendant’s proposed list was “problematic and inappropriate” and that their objections to the plaintiff’s proposed terms were “without merit” and ruled for use of the plaintiff’s search terms in discovery.
read moreIn our efforts to continue to bring our readers perspectives from various thought leaders throughout the eDiscovery community, eDiscoveryDaily has published several thought leader interviews over the nearly 1 1/2 years since our inception. Last year at LegalTech New York (LTNY), we were able to conduct interviews with several eDiscovery industry thought leaders and announced the schedule for those interviews after the show. It appears that the LTNY Thought Leader interviews have become a tradition, as we were able to conduct interviews again with several industry thought leaders! Here are the interviews that we will be publishing over the next few weeks.
read moreWhen it comes to questions and potential issues that the receiving party may have about the discovery process of the producing party, one of the most common and direct methods for conducting “discovery about the discovery” is a deposition under Federal Rule 30(b)(6). This rule enables a party to serve a deposition notice on the entity involved in the litigation rather than an individual. The notice identifies the topics to be covered in the deposition, and the entity being deposed must designate one or more people qualified to answer questions on the identified topics. Topics to be covered in a 30(b)(6) deposition can vary widely, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, there are some typical topics that the deponent(s) should be prepared to address.
read more|
On-Premise Processing and Review offer unique advantages that the cloud alone can’t replicate. Make an informed decision. |
