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
2017 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 4
 2017 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 4 479 270 CloudNine

As we noted yesterday, Tuesday and Monday, eDiscovery Daily published 78 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases! Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to possession, custody and control, subpoena of cloud provider data, waiver of privilege and the first part of the cases relating to sanctions and spoliation. Today, let’s take a look back at the remaining sanctions and spoliation cases.

read more
Webcast: eDiscovery and the GDPR: Ready or Not, Here it Comes! (February 21, 2018)
 Webcast: eDiscovery and the GDPR: Ready or Not, Here it Comes! (February 21, 2018) 150 150 CloudNine

Do you think that your organization isn’t subject to the requirements of Europe’s impending General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)? You may be wrong about that. If it is, are you on target to be compliant by May 25? This CLE-approved* webcast session will cover how data privacy requirements have evolved over time, the parameters associated with the GDPR, what they mean to your organization and what steps your organization needs to take to ensure compliance with the GDPR. m those rulings.

read more
2017 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 1
 2017 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 1 479 270 CloudNine

Once again, it’s time for our annual review of eDiscovery case law! This is our seventh annual review of cases that we covered on the eDiscovery Daily blog over the past year. As always, we had a number of interesting cases related to various eDiscovery topics. So, as we have done for the last six(!) years, let’s take a look back at 2017!

read more
A New Partner for eDiscovery Daily!: eDiscovery Trends
 A New Partner for eDiscovery Daily!: eDiscovery Trends 286 57 CloudNine

When we first started the eDiscovery Daily blog back in September 2010, it took a while for us to gain traction. In fact, we were happy when we had 100 views in a given day on the blog. Now we get several times that number daily. Even on a holiday like Christmas Day, we still considerably exceed those early blog view numbers. Back then, you could only view our blog from within our own site, but that’s not true anymore. And, we’ve just added a new partner to the mix this week!

read more
Your “Mashup” of eDiscovery Market Estimates Can’t Possibly Be Any Earlier: eDiscovery Trends
 Your “Mashup” of eDiscovery Market Estimates Can’t Possibly Be Any Earlier: eDiscovery Trends 518 359 CloudNine

It’s become an annual tradition – the release of the eDiscovery Market Size Mashup that Rob Robinson compiles and presents on his Complex Discovery site each year. It’s also become an annual tradition for him to release it earlier and earlier each year. So, over the holidays, Rob released his worldwide eDiscovery services and software overview for 2017 to 2022.

read more
It’s 2018! How Confident Are You in the State of eDiscovery Business?: eDiscovery Trends
 It’s 2018! How Confident Are You in the State of eDiscovery Business?: eDiscovery Trends 503 355 CloudNine

We’re back! Happy New Year! It’s a new year and a new chance to voice your opinion in the latest quarterly eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey! This time, it’s the Winter 2018 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey created by Rob Robinson and conducted on his terrific Complex Discovery site.

read more
The Gifts that Keep on Giving: eDiscovery Holiday Wishes and Webcasts
 The Gifts that Keep on Giving: eDiscovery Holiday Wishes and Webcasts 404 267 CloudNine

Not only have we had a very successful year in presenting CLE-accredited webcasts this year, we’re already getting started on next year with a new webcast in January! If you want to see how key case law decisions in 2017 may affect how you conduct discovery in 2018 AND how you can still get CLE credit for 2017’s webcasts, read on.

read more
Clawback Agreement Doesn’t Save Documents Inadvertently Produced Twice from Privilege Waiver: eDiscovery Case Law
 Clawback Agreement Doesn’t Save Documents Inadvertently Produced Twice from Privilege Waiver: eDiscovery Case Law 479 270 CloudNine

In Irth Solutions, LLC v. Windstream Communications LLC, Ohio Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson, rejecting the idea that a clawback agreement always protects against waiver of privilege for inadvertently disclosed materials, found that privilege was waived by the defendant’s inadvertent but “completely reckless” production of privileged materials – not once, but twice.

read more
Court Issues Adverse Inference Sanction for Failing to Preserve Non Party’s Text Messages: eDiscovery Case Law
 Court Issues Adverse Inference Sanction for Failing to Preserve Non Party’s Text Messages: eDiscovery Case Law 479 270 CloudNine

In Ronnie Van Zant, Inc. v. Pyle, New York District Judge Robert W. Sweet, among other rulings, issued an adverse inference sanction against one of the defendants for its failure to preserve text messages in the possession of a non-party, finding that defendant had control of the non-party’s text messages, given that he was contracted by the defendant and provided documents and gave a deposition during discovery.

read more
Court Disagrees with Plaintiff’s Contentions that Defendant’s TAR Process is Defective: eDiscovery Case Law
 Court Disagrees with Plaintiff’s Contentions that Defendant’s TAR Process is Defective: eDiscovery Case Law 479 270 CloudNine

In Winfield, et al. v. City of New York, New York Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker, after conducting an in camera review of the defendant’s TAR process and a sample set of documents, granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion, ordering the defendant to provide copies of specific documents where the parties disagreed on their responsiveness and a random sample of 300 additional documents deemed non-responsive by the defendant. Judge Parker denied the plaintiff’s request for information about the defendant’s TAR process, finding no evidence of gross negligence or unreasonableness in their process.

read more