In Updateme Inc. v. Axel Springer SE, California Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ordered the defendants to review a random sample of unreviewed documents in dispute and produce any responsive documents reviewed (along with a privilege log, if applicable) and report on the number of documents and families reviewed and the rate of responsiveness within one week.
read moreRemember the Microsoft Office 365 eDiscovery Challenge Survey that Tom O’Connor and Don Swanson were conducting? The results are in!
read moreIn Metlife Inv’rs. USA Ins. Co. v. Lindsey, Indiana Magistrate Judge John E. Martin granted the motion of the defendants/counter plaintiffs (defendants) to compel the plaintiff/counter-defendant (plaintiff) to produce all responsive documents in the form in which they are maintained in the usual course of business (i.e., native files with metadata) and also ordered the defendants to file an itemization of costs and fees, including attorney’s fees, incurred in making the Motion to Compel.
read moreThe Complex Discovery eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey is in the last quarter of its third year and the results are in for the Fall 2018 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey! As […]
read moreTechnology Assisted Review (TAR) has been court approved for nearly seven years now yet, many lawyers still have yet to embrace these new technologies and approaches. Why, and what needs to happen to change things?.
read moreAs indicated by our friend “Jack”, today is Halloween! This is our ninth(!) year to identify stories to try to “scare” you with tales of eDiscovery and cybersecurity horrors because we are, after all, an eDiscovery blog. Let’s see how we do this year. Michael Myers ain’t got nothing on us!
read moreWhy am I promoting our monthly webcast today instead of the actual day of the webcast (like I usually do)? You’ll see tomorrow when we publish our ninth(!) annual Halloween list of eDiscovery “frights”. Do you scare easily? Then, DON’T read tomorrow’s post! But, DO attend our webcast tomorrow to get a “clue” regarding your eDiscovery process from me, Tom O’Connor and a special guest! Hint: It’s Mike Q.
read moreIn Decker v. Target Corp., Utah District Judge Jill N. Parrish granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ for a finding of spoliation and for sanctions, granting the plaintiffs’ request for sanctions for failing to preserve more of the video surveillance footage of the plaintiff’s trip and fall accident, but denied the plaintiffs’ request for sanctions for failing to preserve training records and the store’s safety statistics and records for 2015.
read moreRemember The Weakest Link? That was the early 2000’s game show with the sharp-tongued British hostess (Anne Robinson) telling contestants that were eliminated “You are the weakest link. Goodbye!” Anyway, in Above the Law (Are Humans The Weak Link In Technology-Assisted Review?), Mike takes a look at TAR and concludes that when TAR has problems, it’s because of the people.
read moreAs we’ve noted before, eDiscovery isn’t just about discovery of emails and office documents anymore. There are so many sources of data these days that legal professionals have to account for and millions more being transmitted over the internet every minute, much of which is being transmitted and managed via mobile devices. Now, here’s a terrific new Mobile Evidence Burden and Relevance Scorecard, courtesy of Craig Ball!
read more|
On-Premise Processing and Review offer unique advantages that the cloud alone can’t replicate. Make an informed decision. |
