Our Insights on eDiscovery

Here’s a Webcast to Help Plaintiff’s Attorneys Conquer Their Biggest eDiscovery Challenges: eDiscovery Webcasts

June 5, 2019

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? Here’s a webcast that will help put those plaintiff’s attorneys on a more equal footing with their defendant counterparts.

If You’re Reading This, It Probably Doesn’t Apply to You: eDiscovery Best Practices

June 4, 2019

On the veritable eve of the annual Georgetown Law Center eDiscovery Training Academy, Craig Ball (who is in the midst of that very academy now) has asked the question Have We Lost the War on E-Discovery? But, if you’re reading that (or this blog post), it probably doesn’t apply to you.

With No Showing of Prejudice, Court Denies Spoliation Sanctions Against Defendant: eDiscovery Case Law

June 3, 2019

In Mafille v. Kaiser-Francis Oil Co., Oklahoma Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy, finding that the plaintiffs “have not demonstrated they have been prejudiced” by the loss of the plaintiff former employee’s work computer, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions “without prejudice to reassertion of the motion if through discovery it is determined that some specific evidence is beyond Plaintiffs’ reach” for the defendant’s “clear failure” to preserve the computer.

If You’re “Certifiable”, You Must Be “Committed”: eDiscovery Trends

May 31, 2019

Despite what the title might suggest, this is an eDiscovery related post, not a psychological one. Certifications have become increasingly important in eDiscovery today and a couple of recent events illustrate how “committed” CloudNine is to eDiscovery professionals who are “certifiable”.

Does Louisiana’s Tech Ethics Opinion Miss the Mark? Depends on Who You Ask: eDiscovery Trends

May 30, 2019

Last week, I read an article from Bob Ambrogi on Above the Law, that discussed his opinion (as well as that of Nicole Black, discussed in her Sui Generis blog) that the recently adopted Louisiana ethics opinion misses the mark with regard to guidance to lawyers regarding their ethical duty to understand technology. When I saw that, I reached out to my good buddy Tom O’Connor (and the longest tenured Louisiana attorney I know, sorry Craig), for his take. Did he agree with that assessment? As Tom put it in his own Techno Gumbo blog (channeling his internal Lee Corso), “not so fast, my friend”.

Today’s Webcast Will Help You Learn How to Keep Production from Becoming Such a Big Production: eDiscovery Webcasts

May 29, 2019

Does it seem like eDiscovery production always turns into a big production? It doesn’t have to do so. There are a number of steps you can take to minimize the stress, cost and rework associated with producing electronically stored information to opposing counsel as well as to ensure that their production to you is as useful as possible. Today’s webcast will help you learn the steps and concepts to keep your productions from turning into a big production.

Court Upholds Decision Not to Compel Plaintiff to Produce Unredacted Narrative of Events: eDiscovery Case Law

May 28, 2019

In Kratz v. Scott Hotel Group, LLC, Indiana District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, stating “[t]o invoke schoolyard vernacular: no do-overs”, denied the defendant’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s decision not to compel the plaintiff to produce versions of an unredacted narrative of events associated with his hotel stays and interactions with hotel staff.

Biggest eDiscovery Challenges Facing Plaintiff’s Attorneys, Part Five

May 24, 2019

Finally, I asked several of our stalwarts to address the questions I posed back in the Introduction to this article. Let’s see what their answers were.

Court Sanctions US Government for Spoliation in Copyright Infringement Case: eDiscovery Case Law

May 23, 2019

In 4DD Holdings, LLC v. U.S., the US Court of Federal Claims, in an opinion issued by Judge Bruggink, “grant[ed] plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions because the government destroyed relevant evidence that it had a duty to preserve.” The Court directed the plaintiffs to “file a motion, appropriately supported, seeking a recovery of its costs and fees related to the motion for sanctions and with respect to discovery prompted by the destruction of evidence” and indicated it would “defer until summary judgment or trial the application of the evidentiary implications of this ruling.” The court also denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss “[b]ecause plaintiffs established that the government authorized or consented to SMS’s allegedly infringing activity when working in SMS labs.”

Biggest eDiscovery Challenges Facing Plaintiff’s Attorneys, Part Four

May 22, 2019

The next most popular choice for plaintiff eDiscovery pain points was lack of competence. Let’s see what our group of attorneys had to say about that challenge for plaintiffs’ attorneys.