Our Insights on eDiscovery

Read on to learn more about the latest trends and insights in the world of digital discovery.
Close
Enter your
text here
Today’s Webcast Will Help Plaintiff’s Attorneys Conquer Their Biggest eDiscovery Challenges: eDiscovery Webcasts
 Today’s Webcast Will Help Plaintiff’s Attorneys Conquer Their Biggest eDiscovery Challenges: eDiscovery Webcasts 465 263 CloudNine

As we learned in Tom O’Connor’s recent five part blog series, it seems as though the eDiscovery deck is stacked against plaintiff’s attorneys. Defendants seem to have all the resources, the technical know-how and the interest of the major eDiscovery vendors while the plaintiffs often have few resources, technical knowledge or eDiscovery experience. How do plaintiff’s attorneys bridge that gap? Today’s webcast that will help put those plaintiff’s attorneys on a more equal footing with their defendant counterparts.

read more
Court Rules That Privilege Assertion and Potential Fraud Don’t Mix: eDiscovery Case Law
 Court Rules That Privilege Assertion and Potential Fraud Don’t Mix: eDiscovery Case Law 479 270 CloudNine

In Gates Corp. v. CRP Indus., Inc., Colorado Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix overruled the Defendant’s Objection to Report and Recommendation of Special Master on Gates Corporation’s Motion to Pierce Attorney/Client Privilege and proceeded with the Discovery Master’s recommendation, ordering the defendant to submit for in camera review readable and searchable versions of the documents identified as privileged by the defendant (along with an Excel spreadsheet of the privilege log) to the Special Master for review.

read more
Been Hacked? That May Be Because of an Unpatched Vulnerability in Your Software: Cybersecurity Trends
 Been Hacked? That May Be Because of an Unpatched Vulnerability in Your Software: Cybersecurity Trends 341 341 CloudNine

There are plenty of reasons that organizations experience a data breach, including weak or stolen passwords (despite the availability of two factor authentication technology to thwart those efforts). Here’s another common cause of data breaches: unpatched vulnerabilities in your software.

read more
Simon Says – Once, Twice, Three Times a Spoliator: eDiscovery Case Law
 Simon Says – Once, Twice, Three Times a Spoliator: eDiscovery Case Law 479 270 CloudNine

In Univ. Accounting Serv., LLC v. Schulton, Oregon District Judge Michael H. Simon granted in part the plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Spoliation Sanctions Against Defendant Ethan Schulton, finding that the defendant “acted with the intent to deprive” the plaintiff of information that he deleted, but granted the plaintiff’s alternative motion for lesser sanctions, choosing to provide the jury with a permissive inference spoliation instruction against the defendant instead of case termination sanctions.

read more
A “Random” Idea on Search Sampling: eDiscovery Throwback Thursdays
 A “Random” Idea on Search Sampling: eDiscovery Throwback Thursdays 317 320 CloudNine

Last Thursday, we talked about how to determine an appropriate sample size to test your search results as well as the items NOT retrieved by the search, using a site that provides a sample size calculator. Today, we’ll talk about how to make sure the sample size is randomly selected.

read more
This Blog Post Will Not Be Automatically Deleted, But Your Instant Message Might Be: eDiscovery Trends
 This Blog Post Will Not Be Automatically Deleted, But Your Instant Message Might Be: eDiscovery Trends 582 437 CloudNine

The sources of electronically stored information (ESI) are more varied than ever. Now, they routinely include text messages and messages from instant messaging apps. But, depending on the instant message app – or the archive option for any messaging app, that ESI might not be available at litigation time.

read more
Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Timeliness and Form Served Arguments; Grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel: eDiscovery Case Law
 Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Timeliness and Form Served Arguments; Grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel: eDiscovery Case Law 479 270 CloudNine

In Frey v. Minter, Georgia Chief U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the defendant’s discovery requests were untimely and were not properly served and granted the defendant’s motion to compel against the plaintiff. With regard to the defendant’s motion to compel against a non-party law firm, Judge Clay ordered that firm to provide the defendant with an estimated cost for responding to the requests, and upon payment of those costs, to produce the documents within twenty-one days.

read more
Got Data Across Borders? The Sedona Conference Has a Commentary for You: eDiscovery Best Practices
 Got Data Across Borders? The Sedona Conference Has a Commentary for You: eDiscovery Best Practices 428 600 CloudNine

Lately, it seems like we have a new publication from The Sedona Conference® (TSC) every couple of months or so. This latest publication provides guidance to those that are transferring data across borders.

read more
Discovery “Cautionary Tale” Leads to Recommendations of Default Judgment Against Defendants: eDiscovery Case Law
 Discovery “Cautionary Tale” Leads to Recommendations of Default Judgment Against Defendants: eDiscovery Case Law 479 270 CloudNine

In Abbott Laboratories, et al. v. Adelphia Supply USA, et al., New York Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, noting that the plaintiff’s motion for case ending sanctions against H&H Wholesale Services, Inc., its principal, Howard Goldman, and its marketing manager and Mr. Goldman’s wife, Lori Goldman (“H&H Defendants”) for wide-scale discovery misconduct “presents a cautionary tale about how not to conduct discovery in federal court” recommended that the plaintiffs’ motion be granted, and that the Court should enter a default judgment against the H&H Defendants.

read more
Determining Appropriate Sample Size to Test Your Search: eDiscovery Throwback Thursdays
 Determining Appropriate Sample Size to Test Your Search: eDiscovery Throwback Thursdays 317 320 CloudNine

One part of searching best practices is to test your search results (both the result set and the files not retrieved) to determine whether the search you performed is effective at maximizing both precision and recall to the extent possible, so that you retrieve as many responsive files as possible without having to review too many non-responsive files. One question I often get is: how many files do you need to review to test the search? Let’s take a look.

read more