Once you’ve defined the objectives of the review, you need to move forward with other preparation steps: You need to draft review criteria, you need to identify the type of people that are appropriate for the review, and you need to pull that team together. Before moving forward with these steps, you need a bit more information. You need to know what’s in the document collection.
read moreRecently, this blog cited a Duke Law Journal study that indicated that eDiscovery sanctions were at an all-time high through 2009. Then, a couple of weeks ago, I saw a story recently from Williams Mullen providing a very thorough recap of 2010 including trends in sanctions (identifying several cases where sanctions were at issue), advances made during the year in cooperation and proportionality, challenges associated with privacy concerns in foreign jurisdictions and trends in litigation dealing with social media. One noteworthy finding is that, according to the report, sanctions were sought and awarded in fewer cases in 2010.
read moreSo, how did you do? Did you know all the answers from Friday’s post – without “googling” them? 😉 Here are the answers – enjoy!
read moreDatabases: You can’t live with them, you can’t live without them. Or so it seems in eDiscovery. On a regular basis, I’ve seen various articles and discussions related to discovery of databases and other structured data and I remain very surprised how few legal teams understand database discovery and know how to handle it. But, maybe you already know all you need to know about databases? Here is a brief “pop” quiz on database concepts. See how many you can answer!
read moreYesterday, we introduced the blog series to discuss Managing an eDiscovery Contract Review Team. Now, it’s time to get started! The first step in preparing for a document review is to very clearly define the objectives of the review. It’s an easy step, but it’s very important. It will drive several subsequent decisions that you’ll make regarding management of the project.
read moreIn a perfect world, attorneys responsible for a case would review an entire document collection for responsive materials. On large cases with huge collections, that’s just not practical or possible. In those situations, your only choice may be to pull together a team of contract reviewers to identify responsive materials.
read moreComedian Nick Bakay always ends his Tale of the Tape skits where he compares everything from Married vs. Single to Divas vs. Hot Dogs with the phrase “It’s all so simple when you break things down scientifically”. The late December/early January time frame is always when various people in eDiscovery make their annual predictions as to what trends to expect in the coming year. I thought we would take a look at other predictions and see if we can spot some common trends among those. Here they are.
read moreOn November 1 of last year, we noted on this blog that Oklahoma had become the latest state to adopt amendments to their Rules of Civil Procedure, leaving only 14 states (including DC) to not have enacted any rules changes that address discovery of ESI as of January 1st of this year. That’s because on January 1, Wisconsin became the latest state to adopt eDiscovery amendments to their Rules of Civil Procedure.
read moreDiscoverability of social media content has been a big topic this year, with several cases addressing the issue. The holiday week look back at cases concludes with Crispin v. Christian Audigier Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52832 (C.D. Calif. May 26, 2010), which addresses whether ‘private’ data on social networks is discoverable.
read moreThe holiday week look back at cases continues with Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 2010 WL 2557250 (D.N.J. June 22, 2010), which addresses whether a party may obtain a Protective Order relieving it of the duty to access backup tapes, even when that party’s failure to issue a litigation hold resulted in the data only being available on those backup tapes.
read more