Yesterday, we talked about the information you should include in a request for proposal for eDiscovery processing. Today we’ll review some questions you should ask of a service provider to help you to select the one that’s the best fit for your case.
read moreLast week, we covered preparing a RFP for eDiscovery Collection and Forensics. This week’s RFP discussion will focus on processing eDiscovery, and today we’ll cover the information you should provide to a vendor regarding your collection and your requirements. Remember, the more thorough you are, the better the vendor will be able to gauge the scope and complexity of your project.
read moreA US District court in Indiana ruled on June 28, 2011 in favor of a motion for an Order to Secure Evidence in an employment discrimination lawsuit. The defendant had given the plaintiff reason to believe that emails and other relevant documents might be destroyed prior to Rule 26(f) meeting between the parties or Rule 16(b) discovery conference with the court. As a result, the plaintiff formally requested a litigation hold on all potentially relevant documents, which was approved by US Magistrate Judge Andrew Rodovich.
read moreLast year, eDiscovery Daily identified states that have not currently enacted any rules changes for eDiscovery. One of the states that had previously enacted eDiscovery rules changes – Connecticut – has updated their rules as Superior Court judges made several amendments to the Connecticut Practice Book that will affect eDiscovery and other legal practices in Connecticut courts.
read moreUS lawsuits are very public, involving discovery and other public disclosures that go against the cultural traditions and laws of many nations in other parts of the world. In the European Union (EU), for instance, many countries have privacy protection laws that forbid the disclosure of “personal information” – and the definition of personal information here can mean anything from addresses and phone numbers to even the names of individuals if they are used in work reports and business documents.
read moreYesterday, we talked about the information you should include in a request for proposal for eDiscovery Collection and Forensics services. Of course, that’s only half the picture. To determine if a vendor is a good choice, you’ll also need to ask questions about the vendor’s offerings and experience and ask them for information about their operations.
read moreSeveral months ago, we talked about how most litigators have come to accept that Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) systems are secure. However, according to a recent study by the Ponemon Institute, the chance of any business being hacked in the next 12 months is a “statistical certainty”. No matter how secure a system is, whether it’s local to your office or stored in the “cloud”, an insufficient password that can be easily guessed can allow hackers to get in and steal your data.
read morePennsylvania seems to be taking the lead in setting social media discovery precedents, as evidenced by this case summarized on eDiscovery Daily earlier this week. In this case, a Pennsylvania court agreed to review a plaintiff’s Facebook account in order to determine which information is subject to discovery in a case relating to the plaintiff’s claim of injury in a motor vehicle accident.
read moreWe’ve discussed international eDiscovery issues and the process that U.S. attorneys have to go through as they request electronic documents and evidence from locations in other countries around the world in a couple of recent posts. But what about the reverse? Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code, widely known as “Section 1782,” is a federal statute that allows attorneys outside the U.S. to request discovery in American courts from an American citizen or business.
read moreLast month, we discussed the eDiscovery malpractice case filed against McDermott Will & Emery for allegedly failing to supervise contract attorneys that were hired to perform the client’s work and to protect privileged client records. This case is still continuing to generate much buzz in the eDiscovery community and I’m sure it will be closely followed as it progresses. At least one attorney from another firm has weighed in on the possibility of eDiscovery malpractice in other cases. Dennis Kiker, a partner with LeClair Ryan noted in their blog The e-Discovery Myth that eDiscovery malpractice is probably more widespread than most people think.
read more|
On-Premise Processing and Review offer unique advantages that the cloud alone can’t replicate. Make an informed decision. |
