Today’s thought leader is Joshua Poje. Joshua is a Research Specialist with the American Bar Association’s Legal Technology Resource Center, which publishes the Annual Legal Technology Survey. He is a graduate of DePaul University College of Law and Augustana College.
read moreToday’s thought leader is John Simek. John is the Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, a computer forensics firm in Fairfax, Va, where he has worked since 1997. He is an EnCase Certified Examiner and is a nationally known testifying expert in computer forensic issues. Together with his wife, Sharon Nelson, John has become a frequent speaker on eDiscovery topics and digital forensic issues. We have also interviewed Sharon, who serves as Sensei’s President, for this series, and her interview will appear this coming Wednesday.
read moreToday’s thought leader is Bennett B. Borden. Bennett is the co-chair of Williams Mullen’s eDiscovery and Information Governance Section. Based in Richmond, Va., his practice is focused on Electronic Discovery and Information Law. He has published several papers on the use of predictive coding in litigation. Bennett is not only an advocate for predictive coding in review, but has reorganized his own litigation team to more effectively use advanced computer technology to improve eDiscovery.
read moreToday’s thought leader is Jason R. Baron. Jason has served as National Archives’ Director of Litigation since 2000 and is Co-Chair of the Working Group on Electronic Document Retention and Production for the Sedona Conference. Jason is also one of the founding coordinators of the TREC Legal Track, a search project organized through the National Institute of Standards and Technology to evaluate search protocols used in eDiscovery. This year, Jason was awarded the Emmett Leahy Award for Outstanding Contributions and Accomplishments in the Records and Information Management Profession.
read moreThere was an interesting post in the EDD Update blog a few days ago entitled Ediscovery Production Without Review, written by Albert Barsocchini, Esq. The post noted that due to “[a]dvanced analytics, judicial acceptance of computer aided coding, claw back/quick-peek agreements, and aggressive use of Rule 16 hearings”, many attorneys are choosing to produce responsive ESI without spending time and money on a final linear review. A colleague of mine sent me an email with a link to the post and stated, “I would not hire a firm if I knew they were producing without a doc by doc review.” So, when (if ever) is it OK to produce without linear review?
read moreeDiscoveryDaily thought quite a bit about what to get for our readers to celebrate these holidays, and what better to give you than interviews with some of the most influential thought leaders in eDiscovery today! Jason Krause has been working hard and “chased” down several well respected individuals and, as a result, we’re pleased to introduce the schedule for the series, which will begin this Wednesday, December 14. Here are the interviews that we will be publishing over the next two weeks!
read moreAs noted yesterday and back in May, prevailing defendants are becoming increasingly successful in obtaining awards against plaintiffs for reimbursement of eDiscovery costs. An award of costs to the successful defendants in a patent infringement action included $64,295 in costs for conversion of data to TIFF format and $5,950 for an eDiscovery project manager in Jardin v. DATAllegro, Inc.
read moreBack in May, we discussed a case where the plaintiff, after losing its lawsuit, was responsible for repaying the defendant more than $367,000 in eDiscovery costs. In re Aspartame Antitrust Litig., a case with a “staggering” volume of discovery, successful defendants were awarded about $500,000 of their electronic discovery costs for a litigation database, imaging hard drives, keyword searches, de-duplication, and data extraction that allowed for cost-effective discovery. However, the court refused to award costs for defendants’ use of an eDiscovery program that provided visual clustering of documents and went beyond necessary keyword search and filtering functions.
read moreEffective communication is a key part of effective project management, whether that communication is internally within the project team or externally with your client. It is so easy for miscommunications to occur that can derail your project and cause deadlines to be missed, or work product to be incomplete or not meet the client’s expectations. That’s why I like to employ a “belt and suspenders” approach to communication with clients.
read moreA few days ago, I reviewed search syntax that one of my clients had prepared and noticed a couple of “gotchas” that typically cause problems. While we’ve discussed them on this blog before, it was over a year ago (when eDiscovery Daily was still in its infancy and had a fraction of the readers it has today), so it bears covering them again.
read more