CloudNine
Want to be better equipped to speak the “lingo” of eDiscovery and understand what you’re saying? Here’s a glossary that can help.
read more
Yesterday, we began to discuss some of the production parameters that CloudNine collects from our clients in order to ensure that the production includes the correct documents in the required format. But, wait – there’s more! Let’s take a look at some other examples of information we collect from our clients.
read more
We sometimes forget that the end goal of the discovery process is production: to produce responsive electronically stored information (ESI) to opposing counsel. But, do you realize how many parameters and potential permutations there can be to the production process? Let’s take a look.
read more
In Nachurs Alpine Solutions, Corp. v. Banks, Iowa Chief Magistrate Judge C. J. Williams granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion to compel ESI discovery, by ordering the defendants to produce all of the ESI documents it identified as unresponsive under an Attorneys Eyes Only label and that the plaintiff bear its own costs of reviewing the documents for the categories it believes may hold relevant documents.
read moreThis CLE-approved* webcast session will discuss different on-premise and off-premise eDiscovery solution options and considerations for each.
read more
In Ariel Inv., LLC v. Ariel Capital Advisors LLC, Illinois District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly granted the prevailing plaintiff’s request to tax most requested costs in the amount of $99,378.32, including the entire amount ($85,666.51) requested for reimbursement for eDiscovery costs.
read more
eDiscovery Case Week continues. The best predictor of future behavior is relevant past behavior. Nowhere is that truer than with legal precedents set by past case law decisions, especially when it relates to eDiscovery best practices. Are you aware of recent case law decisions related to eDiscovery best practices and what that those decisions mean to your organization?
read more
In HCC Ins. Holdings, Inc. v. Flowers, Georgia District Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. denied the plaintiff’s motion for adverse inference sanctions despite evidence that the defendant had used evidence wiping software twice after being ordered to produce her personal computer, stating that the plaintiff “offers only bare speculation that any of its trade secrets or other data were actually transferred” to the defendant’s laptop.
read more
In Solo v. United Parcel Services Co., Michigan Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen agreed that the defendant showed that the level of data requested by the plaintiff “would be extraordinarily burdensome” and ordered the parties to discuss the defendant’s proposed methodology and “meet, confer, and agree on a mutually acceptable sampling methodology” if the plaintiff did not agree to the defendant’s approach.
read more
As someone who writes a blog daily for (part of) my living, I can attest that it can be a challenge to stay on top of eDiscovery trends and case law. I try to do my best to provide some of that to the readers of this blog and, when it comes to case law, we provide posts on about 60 to 70 cases each year (we’re over 400 unique cases covered lifetime). But, here’s a resource that provides access to even more case law, and several other great resources, as well.
read more